August 1, 1994 - Part 2
August 1, 1994 - Part 2
(12:50:50) Senator BOXER, I'm trying to understand why we spend taxpayer money on things people are going to read in the paper that I think take time away from the le ultimate work of the RTC. You've got a lot of work to do, a lot of cases out there, a lot of money out there. I'd like to ask, if I have a little more time here, Mr. Ryan, ou say in your deposition the Madison Guaranty investigation had been closed before and that the decision had been made sometime 43 back in 1990-91 that there wasn't a cost-effective case at Madison That was when George Bush was President, was it not? Mr. RYAN. I believe it was. Senator BOXER, In your deposition you also refer to a closure memo on Madison Guaranty. Are you, aware of the existence of a closure memo relating to Madison guaranty? Mr. RYAN. I am, but I'm not certain-yes, I am. Senator BOXER. Isn't it true that from February 1989 to February 1992 the RTC had the ability to sue wrongdoers at Madison and isn't it also true the ability of the RTC to sue wrongdoers which was dead as of February 1992, was revived by the RTC Completion Act signed into law by President Clinton in 1993? Mr. RYAN. That's correct. Senator BOXER. After the passage of this legislation, did you begin a review of all cases on which the statute expired or just those which would be considered cost-effective? Mr. RYAN. Senator, we've tried to review as many cases that were reopened by the statute as our resources would allow us to review. Unfortunately Senator BOXER. That means cost-effective? Mr. RYAN. Yes. Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. I have a final sum-up question if I might. The CHAIRMAN. If it's brief Senator BOYER, It is in this line. There was a decision made at the RTC under George Bush that there wasn't a cost-effective case at Madison but then the case was again being reviewed as of December 1993 when President Clinton was in office. Are you aware of anyone at the RTC who was ever pressured by anyone at the White House, White House staff, or Treasury staff not to begin a review specifically of the Madison case? Mr. RYAN. No, Senator. Senator BOXER. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. I just want to note for the record because it was developed in the testimony, and you made it-you indicated Vol] don't normally come up here and talk with Members of the Congress, House, or Senate. Had there been other occasions? How many times have you done that? Mr. RYAN. Since I've been with the RTC, none, The CHAIRMAN. Senator Domenici, Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, if I might Mr. RYAN. I'm sorry. I have made several courtesy calls when I was the Acting CEO, but I've never come up at the request of a Senator or his or her office, The CHAIRMAN. It wasn't clear to me from your answer whether you had or had not and I wanted to pin that down. Senator D'Amato, you wanted to- - Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, let me set a context and later, run on my time, I will spend a little more tit-no developing it. We were trying to &et information as it relates to when the statute of limitations would expire. We were attempting to find out if there be a procedure to guarantee if the statute of limitations Were imminently going to expire, there would be a tolling agreement. In addition, I might say as it related to the meeting which 44 I did not attend, but which staff attended and also which the:' Chairman helped arrange, because we were getting no cooperation as to getting information. We were not trying to get information relating to the substance of the case. We have never asked for the substance of the case. I might say that I have a memo here, that I'll put into the file, to Ben Nye from Peter Knight. He accompanied you to that meeting. Mr. RYAN. Yes. Senator DAMATo. He concluded by saying, "I would not characterize the meeting as a briefing on the status of the Madison civil investigation." That was written March 3, 1994. So it was not written at my request. It was an internal document. The fact of the matter is that, even at that meeting, we were not told when the statute would toll. Subsequently, I came to my colleagues, got eight or nine of them to sign a letter to ask for this information and what would take place, and we learned one thing via the phone call that was thereafter arranged. Again, it was only because Senator Riegle said, come on, respond to the Congress, that we learned the statute might run out February 28, 1994, and there was another interpretation, it might be, I think, March 2 or 3, 1994. That's the only information we got in relation to when the statute of limitations might run out. We were told all other information could not be made available. A far different thing than the briefing that the White House received. I've seen, now, in a number of statements, statements put out by Mr. Cutler, statements put out by others, that the Congress got this briefing, and the White House got the same. Absolutely nonsense.