Therefore, there has been no violation of FIRREA. While Defendants do not intentionally seek to frustrate Rep. Leach, the fact that he feels frustrated by the will of the Majority party in the House does not provide him with any legal rights under FIRREA. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the OTS and RTC respectfully request that their Motion to Dismiss, or for Summary Judgment be granted. required of Defendant RTC by 12 U.S.C. §§ 1441a(b) (4) and (5), to anyone, including the Chairman of the Committee. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the 27th day of June, 1994, a copy of Defendants' Reply in support of Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment was served by hand delivery on: Bobby R. Burchfield Jackson R. Sharman III 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044-7566 Attorneys for James A. Leach салатта DC01:35006 LIST OF EXHIBITS A. Letter from R. Fiske to Hon. A. D'Amato, dated May 26, 1994, reprinted in 140 B. C. Joint Statement entitled House Hearings on Whitewater, dated June 15, 1994. Glenn R. Simpson, Leach Files Lawsuit Over Right To Files, Roll Call, May 12, 1994. 140 Cong. Rec. S6819 (daily ed. June 14, 1994) (Statement of Senator Mitchell). D. E. 140 Cong. Rec. S6680 (daily ed. June 9, 1994) (Statement of Senator D'Amato). F. G. H. I. David E. Rosenbaum, Washington Talk; Play It Again, Congress. This Time, Charles V. Zehren, Whitewater Sequel; Hearings Loan On Issue Clintons Would Helen Dewar, Dole Warns Democrats On Whitewater, The Washington Post, FOIA Update, Winter 1994 ("OIP Guidance: Congressional Access Under FOIA") at 3-4. Vol. 140 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 1994 No. 71 Congressional Record United States of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 103 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION S6674 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the Senator. Mr. D'AMATO. Let me say that our problem-our problem was that we understand the nature of the Senator's amendment. Notwithstanding that, we believe that if we examine both proposals. we feel there is more merit to ours and as we will argue during this debate and that we would not have a real and legitimate opportunity to make those meaningful distinctions. As a matter of fact. what will take place is that we will have a straight party line vote. It is the nature of things. And that vote will be most Republicans. if not all. voting to accept the proposal as crafted by Senator DOLE and others on our side, and most crats voting against, with the unnding and assurance that the .ty leader would then come forth When the proposal which he has put forth. There are, and I will speak to them. a number of serious deficiencies, at least that we discern as it relates to accepting that methodology of moving forward. Just to get to the essence, we have a constitutional responsibility as it relates to the oversight role of the Congress. I believe that we have been more than patient in giving to our colleagues an opportunity to craft a methodology of moving forward. And I say I think they have exercised good faith in attempting to come as far as we have. But we now hit a situation where the Democratic leadership is suggesting in essence that this Congress will not go forward with their hearings until and unless the special counsel has concluded various parts of the investigation. and that we cannot go forward until 30 days after the initial phase of the special counsel's investigation. or no later than July 30. And those areas that we could look into are circumscribed. are limited. They do not even include an area which the special prosecutor. by way of a let has indicated to me. quite clearly. ⚫ not reviewing. Let me refer to etter from Mr. Fiske of May 26. .id. DEAR SENATOR D'AMATO: I am responding to the two questions raised in your letter of May 23, 1994. The commodity transactions of Mrs. Clinton occurred during a period of time which is outside the applicable statute of limitations. We do not preclude looking into those trans- I will ask unanimous consent to have There being no objection. the letter was ordered to be printed in RECORD, as follows: the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. DEAR SENATOR D'AMATO: I am responding The commodity transactions of Mrs. Clin- The White House review of Treasury docu- ROBERT B. FISKE, Jr.. Mr. D'AMATO. But notwithstanding June 9, 1994 ible, voters will understand and will know. But that is a prerogative and right of the Congress, and to simply say no. that we are not going to do it because it might be politically damaging and embarrassing, seems to me something we cannot accept. I suggest if it were the other way around, that if it were the Democratic Congress looking into a Republican in power, you would find that that matter would be fair game. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly. Mr. MITCHELL. Is it the position of the Senator from New York that when an elected official is the subject of an accusation or an allegation of wrongdoing or impropriety. that if that elected official does not publicly disclose all documents relating to the matter, it is a fair inference that the public official has something to hide? Mr. D'AMATO, No. Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the Senator. Mr. D'AMATO. I do not make that inference at all. Mr. MITCHELL. I thought that. Mr. D'AMATO. I do not make that inference. And I suggest that this matter, as it relates to whether or not there has been a favoritism given to the Governor and to his family as it related to the initial investment of $1,000, and the apparent contradictions that have appeared thereafter, both in the public record and in those documents that have been released. that they are proper subject matter of inquiry. Did the trader violate the law? Did the exchange violate the law? And I think Tyson Foods personnel and the broker should be called in to ascertain what, if anything, took place. I do not make an accusation as to what did and did not take place. I say we have a right to review this. This is the process that has been set forth. I am not asking for a different process. Mr. MITCHELL. Would the Senator We are asking for the same process. like an answer now? Mr. D'AMATO, Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. Because it has nothing to do with this matter. It is an obvious political fishing expedition by the Senator from New York and his Republican colleagues in an effort to embarrass the President and Mrs. Clinton. It has no legislative purpose. It only has a political purpose. That is why it is not included. Mr. D'AMATO. I suggest we have a very real disagreement because we are talking about a pattern of abuse, and the question is whether that pattern of abuse was a pattern of power being misused in Little Rock, taken and moved right on up through the line. covering all of these areas. It is a pattern that we have a right to explore and if indeed, there is nothing, nothing will come of it. If. indeed, people conduct themselves and the investigation in a manner that is less than cred So I point out to the majority leader that that is one of the problems right off the bat. Hence, our reluctance to accept his agreement. I am not suggesting that he has not attempted as best he can to deal with the political realities. Are there politics involved? Of course. The nature of the process is one where there is politics involved by both the Democratic side and the Republican side. For people to say there is absolutely no politics would be ridiculous. But the question is the proper discharge in the proper manner of our responsibility. That is why we drafted a resolution. and I am going to ask the clerk to read the entire text of that resolution because it is important. It is substantive. It is something that the people will understand when they hear it. So when I do put it in-and if the majority leader would like a copy now. I will be happy to provide him with that. |