I have reviewed your letter dated May 2, 1994, rejecting my appeal from the Resolution. Trust Corporation's denial of my request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act for documents pertaining to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association ("Madison Quaranty"). With reluctance I have concluded that I am left with no option except to authorize my attorneys to initiate litigation against both the RTC and the office of Thrift Supervision (Ors) in an effort to obtain documents patently relevant to committee oversight. For your convenience, a copy of the complaint is attached. My decision to pursue litigation was not made lightly. As the Ranking Member of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs ("the Committee"), I am obligated under the Constitution, federal banking laws including the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), and House rules to oversee the actions of the RTC and OTS, and to assess implementation of FIRREA. Clearly encompassed within this oversight responsibility is a duty to investigate allegations of wrongdoing at failed thrift institutions, such as Madison Quaranty. In view of recent committee investigations of such institutions as Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, California, Silverado Savings and Loan Association of Denver, Colorado, Centrust Savings and Loan Association of Miami, Florida, and Columbia Savings and Loan Association of Beverly Hills, California, which also underwent concomitant Justice Department probes, the RTC and OTS surely would not seriously challenge this responsibility. Here, it should be stressed that analogous documents relating to each and every one of the institutions listed above have been made readily available to the Ranking Member of the Committees of jurisdiction. James Barker, Esquire May 11, 1994 At issue is full disclosure. In this context, the question of partisanship deserves review. While I may have differed in judgment with given observations of individual members in various investigations, I have supported all Banking Committee oversigh: investigations of the S&L industry and, indeed, suggested a probe be initiated against an S&L identified with a Republicar. Governor, Fife Symington. I was accordingly, with dismay, that I read of my committee chairman's effort to bolster the Executive's position vis-a-vis Congress in his instruction by letter of March 10, 1994, to both the RTC and OTS not to produce documents requested by me and in his instructions by letter four days later that regulators need not answer questions concerning the failure of Madison Guaranty at then scheduled RTC oversight hearings. Indeed, among the items being withheld -- on facially tenuous personal privacy" grounds is correspondence between the RTC and Members of Congress. In our dispute the fundamental proposition that I am advancing is simply that in relationship to the oversight role assigned to it under the rubric of the Constitution, Congress has authority to seek and review documents of federal government agencies. Under precedent and due to decentralized practicalities, Congress has devolved this particular authority to Committees which have jurisdiction over various federal agencies and federal programs. As the ranking Minority Member of the Committee of jurisdiction over the agencies responsible for regulation of savings and loan associations and disposal of assets of failed institutions, I have a particular responsibility to the Congress to oversee related Executive Branch policies and actions. With the same political party in control of both Houses of Congress as well as the Executive Branch, the responsibility of the Ranking Member of a committee with oversight responsibilities for an Executive agency takes on enhanced dimensions. The Constitution did not envisage that a Member would be required to default on his or her individual responsibilities simply because a political determination may be made by an Executive branch agency to withhold documents pertaining to a particularly embarrassing circumstance. In the past several decades, Congress has let the public down by not vigorously overseeing laws and policies that apply to the S&L industry. The costliness of this failure to perform vigorous oversight is evidenced by the quarter trillion dollar bill the taxpayer has been forced to honor, a small part of which relates to a failed institution in Arkansas, Madison Guaranty. The reason for this particular oversight investigation relates to the lessons that need to be learned, particularly as they apply to the role of state governments in regulating state-chartered, state-regulated institutions in the backdrop of a federalized deposit insurance program. In this dispute about who is entitled to speak for Congress in the context of Congress' right and obligation under Article I of the Constitution to conduct oversight of the Executive branch, Chairman Gonzalez' letters contained an philosophical assertion that not only does a chairman have the implicit and unprecedented exclusive right to obtain oversight documents from the Executive branch, but the right to deny such documentation to other Members and the right even to deny inquiries about issues clearly germane to the subject of hearings. An RTC oversight hearing was scheduled under requirement of law, Section 21A (k) (6) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 91441a (k) (6)), and there is no provision in that law for exceptions to Congressional oversight that relate to a single state and its institutions. The U.S. Congress wrote a law applicable to all 50 states, not 49, and the oversight of our laws applies throughout this country. Just as in America no individua: is above the law, no state is beyond its reach. Just as no individual is entitled to violate the law out of ignorance of it, no person, even the chairman of a congressional Committee, is entitled after the fact to be sole interpreter of a law's meaning or serve as a censor of another Member's inquiries . numerous occasions On The precedent of the Banking Committee is clear with respect to the So we have had now over the years since 1989, a very long At issue is full disclosure. In this context, the question of partisanship deserves review. While I may have differed in judgment with given observations of individual members in various investigations, I have supported all Banking Committee oversigh: investigations of the S&L Industry and, indeed, suggested a probe be initiated against an S&L identified with a Republicar. Governor, Fife Symington. It was accordingly, with dismay, that I read of my committee chairman's effort to bolster the Executive's position vis-a-vis Congress in his instruction by letter of March 10, 1994, to both the RTC and OTS not to produce documents requested by me and in his instructions by letter four days later that regulators need not answer questions concerning the failure of Madison Guaranty at then scheduled RTC oversight hearings. Indeed, among the items being withheld - on facially tenuous personal privacy" grounds is correspondence between the RTC and Members of Congress. In our dispute the fundamental proposition that I am advancing is simply that in relationship to the oversight role assigned to it under the rubric of the Constitution, Congress has authority to seek and review documents of federal government agencies. Under precedent and due to decentralized practicalities, Congress has devolved this particular authority to Committees which have jurisdiction over various federal agencies and federal programs. As the ranking Minority Member of the Committee of jurisdiction over the agencies responsible for regulation of savings and loan associations and disposal of assets of failed institutions, I have a particular responsibility to the Congress to oversee related Executive Branch policies and actions. With the same political party in control of both Houses of congress as well as the Executive Branch, the responsibility of the Ranking Member of a committee with oversight responsibilities for an Executive agency takes on enhanced dimensions. The Constitution did not envisage that a Member would be required to default on his or her individual responsibilities simply because a political determination may be made by an Executive branch agency to withhold documents pertaining to a particularly embarrassing circumstance. In the past several decades, Congress has let the public down by not vigorously overseeing laws and policies that apply to the SEL industry. The costliness of this failure to perform vigorous oversight is evidenced by the quarter trillion dollar bill the taxpayer has been forced to honor, a small part of which relates to a failed institution in Arkansas, Madison Guaranty. The reason for this particular oversight investigation relates to the lessons that need to be learned, particularly as they apply to the role of state governments in regulating Atate-chartered, state-regulated institutions in the backdrop of a federalized deposit insurance program. In this dispute about who is entitled to speak for Congress in the context of Congress' right and obligation under Article I of the Constitution so conduct oversight of the Executive branch, Chairman Gonzalez' letters contained an implicit and unprecedented philosophical assertion that not only does a chairman have the exclusive right to obtain oversight documents from the Executive branch, but the right to deny such documentation to other Members and the right even to deny inquiries about issues clearly germane to the subject of hearings. An RTC oversight hearing was scheduled under requirement of law, Section 21A (k) (6) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 91441a (k) (6)), and there is no provision in that law for exceptions to Congressional oversight that relate to a single state and its institutions. The U.S. Congress wrote a law applicable to all 50 states, not 49, and the oversight of our laws applies throughout this country. Just as in America no individus. is above the law, no state is beyond its reach. Just as no individual is entitled to violate the law out of ignorance of it, no person, even the chairman of a congressional Committee, is entitled after the fact to be sole interpreter of a law's meaning or serve as a censor of another Member's inquiries. On In The precedent of the Banking Committee is clear with respect to the So we have had now over the years since 1989, a very long |