The Keating Five Investigation (McCain)

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a389c4d3151b5.htm

THE KEATING FIVE INVESTIGATION (Senate - October 22, 1990)

[Page: S16326]

Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, I rise this morning to address the Senate with great reluctance and many other emotions, because in my belief the process the Senate uses to judge the ethical conduct of a Member's action should be respected. Mr. President, that respect, by me, a majority of the American people, and other Members of the Senate, is now seriously in jeopardy.

I rise with reluctance, Mr. President, because some of my closest friends and supporters have advised me not to rise and make this speech this morning, saying that the remarks I am about to make may upset the very powerful Ethics Committee, which could, in turn, cause me some political damage for speaking out with criticism and dismay of a process that has evolved over the last year in the adjudication of the allegations before the Ethics Committee concerning me and four other Members of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, this could jeopardize my political career. The fact is, that is not my concern as I stand here this morning. My concern is about my honor, my integrity, and my reputation.

Given the present circumstances, it is imperative that I do rise. There comes a time when you can no longer hold your tongue in the face of things that are wrong, especially when those wrongs can be righted. The Senate now faces this kind of problem, and now is the time to fix it.

Mr. President, not only am I personally frustrated by the failure of the Senate Ethics Committee to act on its year-long Keating Five investigation, there are growing allegations in the media of a coverup. The process has a credibility problem. Headlines read, `Keating Coverup?' `Panel Again Delays `Keating 5' Decision.'

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Wall Street article of October 17, entitled 'Keating Coverup'; a Saturday, October 20, 1990, Washington Post article headlined 'Panel Again Delays 'Keating 5' Decision'; concerning remarks of one member of the Ethics Committee; a New York Times editorial, Friday, October 19, 'How Many in the Keating Crew?' be printed in the Record at this time.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [Page: S16327]

[FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, OCT. 19, 1990]

'How Many in the Keating Crew?'

The Senate Ethics Committee will soon disclose whether the `Keating Five' will be reduced to a smaller group of Senators accused of ethical improprieties in a major savings and loan scandal. Each Senator's involvement was different and each is entitled to an unbiased hearing, but if the committee plans to exonerate any of the five, it had better be prepared to explain its action.

The Keating Five earned their name and notoriety because they met three years ago with Federal regulators who were closing in on Charles Keating, a powerful California S.&L. operator. Mr. Keating had made contributions to the Senators' political campaigns. According to reports from Washington, Robert Bennett, the committee's special counsel, is recommending further investigation of Senators Alan Cranston, Donald Riegle and Dennis DeConcini, but would drop charges against Senators John Glenn and John McCain.

Senators Cranston, Riegle and DeConcini may indeed have been more deeply involved in questionable dealings with Mr. Keating, who now confronts various legal proceedings and languishes in a Los Angeles jail. They received more money from him than the others did, and seem to have done him more favors in his battle against what he deemed oppressive regulation. In addition, Senators Glenn and McCain were more successful in distancing themselves from Mr. Keating after the first two meetings with the regulators. Four of the Five attended the first meeting; all of them attended the second.

Should a senator be disciplined just for showing up at a meeting that advances the interest of a constituent or donor? The answer may depend on the size, timing and context of the meeting--all factors for the Ethics Committee to weigh. Senators Glenn and McCain may not have been ringleaders in the drive to get regulators off Mr. Keating's back. But they must have understood the significance of an imposing gathering of five powerful Senators.

Congress, which sets its own ethical rules, bears heavy responsibility for the S.&.L. debacle. It's not always easy to draw clear lines between improper influence-peddling and valid constituent services. But the Ethics Committee has the duty to try. That means reaching a verdict on each member of the Keating crew, publishing the evidence against each and explaining why it chose to treat some differently from others. Only then can the committee define right and wrong--and point the way to higher standards of behavior.

--

[FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, OCT. 20, 1990]

'Panel Again Delays 'Keating Five' Decision' (BY HELEN DEWAR)

The Senate ethics committee yesterday delayed a decision on five senators under investigation for their ties to failed savings and loan executive Charles H. Keating Jr., prompting a bitter protest from member Trent Lott (D-Miss.) that the five are being victimized by the panel's 'fear of acting.'

Describing himself as `furious' at what he said was the committee's inability to decide how to proceed in the case, Lott said he is pessimistic about chances for action before Congress adjourns next week and added, 'I feel like I've become an accomplice to a crime.'

If he were one of the so-called 'Keating Five,' said Lott in a rare departure from the usual reticence of members of the Select Committee on Ethics, 'I would have gone ballistic. It's just not fair.'

The six-member panel is considering a recommendation from its special counsel, Robert S. Bennett, that it take no further action against Sens. John Glenn (D-Ohio) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) but proceed to a full investigation of Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) and Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich.)

After brief meetings the last two days to decide what to do, the committee, distracted by other business and apparently split over how quickly to act, put off a decision until Monday or Tuesday at the earliest, with no firm commitment to act then.

While Bennett saw no reason to proceed against Glenn and McCain, he found critical links between Keating's contributions to the other three senators and their intervention with thrift industry regulators on behalf of Keating's failed Lincoln Savings and Loan of Irvine, Calif. Keating gave $1.3 million to campaigns and causes of the five senators.

Documents being examined by the committee indicate that Cranston, DeConcini and Riegle had more extensive dealings with Keating than they have acknowledged, including a relationship that continued after regulators warned them that Keating faced a criminal probe.

Sources have indicated that there is at least some doubt on the committee about the fate of Riegle, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who, like Glenn and McCain, apparently did not continue his intervention with regulators on Keating's behalf after the warning of possible criminal activity.

Collapse of Lincoln is estimated to cost taxpayers about $2 billion. Keating was released on $300,000 bond after a month in jail in California, where he faces charges of fraud in the sale of junk bonds issued by his American Continental Corp., which owned Lincoln.

Lott's angry outburst to two reporters came as pressure for action by the committee mounted among Republicans in the Senate, many of whom are complaining that Democrats on the panel are waiting until after the Nov. 6 congressional elections to act. If Glenn and McCain are dropped from the probe, the bipartisan `Keating Five' would become the all-Democratic `Keating Three,' they note.

Sen. Howell T. Heflin (D-Ala.), chairman of the ethics panel, expressed frustration as he left the meeting, but his annoyance was directed at leaks to newspapers of documents that have been compiled in the case.

Asked if the slow pace were attributable to Heflin, who is known for his deliberate way of doing business, Lott said, `I can't say it' one or two [members] or even that it's partisan, quite frankly.' Instead, he said, `I'm afraid it's the Senate . . ., which is completely incompetent to let go of anything.'

Colleagues have said that Glenn and McCain are intensely frustrated by the delay in committee action. `I've been frustrated for a year,' Glenn said yesterday. McCain, who has been more outspoken, said, `Frankly, I'm deeply disappointed they haven't been able to act. I think they owe the American people an explanation.'

--

[FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, OCT. 17, 1990]

'Keating Cover-Up?'

This week the Keating Five--the leading symbols of Congress's abdication of responsibility in the S&L mess--will learn if they have to face a full Senate probe into their efforts on behalf of Charles Keating's infamous Lincoln Savings. If the Ethics Committee's track record is any indication, citizens should demand that the evidence gathered so far be published.

To its credit, the committee retained Robert Bennett, a veteran ethics investigator, as outside counsel to investigate the case. In September, Mr. Bennett submitted a report that said there was enough evidence to suggest that Senators Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California and Donald Riegle of Michigan may have violated federal or Senate rules in intervening with federal regulators to keep Lincoln open. If the committee accepts his 350-page report, the three Senators will face further investigation. Mr. Bennett recommended no further action against Senators John Glenn of Ohio and John McCain of Arizona.

The committee has delayed action on Mr. Bennett's report until now. There is wide speculation the delay is due to efforts by some to put all five Senators on trail, thereby avoiding political embarrassment for Democrats just before November's election. Senator McCain is a Republican. The other four are Democrats.

It is just as likely that the Senate Ethics Committee is trying to draw a distinction between the kind of `influence peddling' at HUD that was so polloried by Congress and what Members of Congress do daily to push the interests of campaign contributors and favored constitutents. Senator Terry Sanford of North Carolina, a member of the Ethics Committee `jury,' has been indiscreet enough to announce a conclusion in advance. The Keating Five `did exactly what every Senator is called on to do every day,' he told constitutents earlier this year.

We wonder if Senator Sanford still feels that way after reports surfaced in the Washington Post about what Mr. Bennett had uncovered. The Post reported that Joy Jacobson, a fund raiser for Senator Cranston, wrote him a memo in early 1987 on Mr. Keating's complaints about a federal crackdown on Lincoln's controversial business practices. Mr. Keating `will rightfully expect some kind of resolution' to his cocnerns, she wrote. Senator Cranston met several times with Mr. Keating and then joined the four other Senators in meeting with federal regulators on his behalf. In September 1987, Ms. Jacobson wrote again to set up another meeting with Mr. Keating and added, `You should ask Keating for $250,000.' Mr. Cranston did, and in November he pocketed a $250,000 check for his voter-registration efforts from a Keating aide in his office.

The public has a right to know the background behind any decision the Ethics Committee makes on the Keating Five. The committee doesn't follow judicial standards of openness, and Congress of course has exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act. In the Jim Wright case, outside counsel Richard Phelan's preliminary report was released despite initial attempts to claim it was privileged. A spokesman for the Senate Ethics Committee told us it has never released equivalent reports from its outside counsels. That means the committee can agree with Senator Sanford's conclusion, end the probe of any or all of the Keating Five, and release none of the evidence. This of course would directly contradict the practice of independent counsels who've made public their reports on investigations of virtually all members of the exective branch.

Mr. Bennett's findings are cruical because they are a serious, independent exploration of the Beltway's business-as-usual practices. Mr. Phelan concluded Speaker Wright had improperly intervened on behalf of broken Texas S&Ls. The House Ethics Committee ducked the awful implications of that charge by delcaring that such actions were an integral part of a Member's job and that it couldn't second-guess `the technique and personality of the legislator.'

This week's decision on the Keating Five gives Congress and the voters another chance to debate the vailidty of that decision. Taxpayers, who will be shelling out an average of $2,000 apiece for the S&L mess, deserve the full story of Congress's involvement. [Page: S16328]

Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, a well-respected member of the Ethics Committee has publicly stated he is essentially frustrated, saying he is furious with the process and that 'he feels like he has become an accomplice to a crime.'

Mr. President, why would a member of the Ethics Committee say that he feels he has become an accomplice to a crime? The only reason why a Member of this body would say that is because he is aware of the Constitution in this country that states unequivocally that justice delayed is justice denied.

Mr. President, justice delayed is justice denied. It is clear to any observer that this system is incredibly and inexcusably delayed.

Mr. President, the Senate does not need this at this particular time in American political history, when our credibility and the confidence of the American people has been so badly eroded. What the Senate needs to do is act. The Senate Ethics Committee needs to act.

What am I seeking, Mr. President? I am seeking two things, which I think are entirely reasonable. One, the outside special counsel's 354-page report, which took 9 months to complete, should be made public immediately.

Mr. President, if the Senate Ethics Committee cannot make a judgment on a special counsel of unimpeachable integrity and reputation, then I think the American people can. I do not know what famous jurist said that `sunshine is the best detergent.' Who said that I do not know, but sunshine remains the best detergent.

The American people have a right to know, I believe, and have a right to inspect this special counsel's report and recommendations on which millions of taxpayers' dollars were expended, and which took 9 months to complete, by one of the most reputable and experienced outside counsels in America.

Mr. President, let the American people decide, if the Senate Ethics Committee cannot.

Second, this committee should decide whether to accept or reject that report before we adjourn this week.

As a person identified as one of the `Keating 5,' I would like to give you a brief, firsthand chronology of this investigation.

The Ethics Committee was first asked to look at all of this a year ago, in October of 1989. I responded to the allegations immediately. In December of last year, the committee retained an outside special counsel.

Let me point out that the organization that demanded this investigation also demanded that a special counsel be appointed, so that there would be objectivity and credibility to whatever decision was eventually made by the Ethics Committee. This special counsel, Mr. President, has been involved in several other investigations, always with great credibility. I personally have the highest regard for his reputation and for the way he has conducted this investigation. That is why the committee picked an outside counsel.

As I said, Mr. Robert Bennett is well respected. He is one of the most experienced and most credible men in Washington, DC, much less America.

I cooperated fully with that process. I produced every document when it was requested. I answered every question asked. I was interviewed in February. I was deposed in April. I was hopeful of judgment in May and then June and then July and then August and September. Time went by; so did the summer. On September 10, over 6 weeks ago, he gave the committee a 354-page report with his findings and his recommendations.

I was convinced, perhaps naively and foolishly, that a judgment would clearly be rendered as a result of this investigation. It now appears that perhaps my hopes were unjustified.

Mr. President, my lawyer and I wrote to the committee on three occasions, seeking action and seeking publication of the investigation, including seeking an open meeting with the Ethics Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record at this time.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follow:

U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, June 5, 1990.

Hon. Howell Heflin, Chairman,

Hon. Warren Rudman, Co-Chairman,
Select Committee on Ethics,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman and Co-Chairman: By your letter to me of October 16, 1989, you notified me that the Committee desired a response to the complaint filed by Common Cause regarding my participation in two meetings with representatives of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board concerning Lincoln Savings and Loan. In my letter to the Committee of November 21, 1989, I gave a detailed response to all the allegations which had been raised concerning those meetings.

On December 7, 1989, the Committee requested that I produce various documents concerning Charles Keating, Lincoln Savings and Loan, and related matters. On December 22, 1989, the Committee announced that it was conducting a preliminary inquiry into this matter, with the assistance of Special Counsel Robert Bennett. On January 10, 1990 I produced two boxes of documents which were responsive to the Committee's document request. Additional information in the form of responses to interrogatories was provided by me to the Committee on January 25, 1990.

My counsel, John M. Dowd, advised Mr. Bennett on several occasions of my desire to cooperate in any way possible to expedite the Committee's inquiry. Accordingly, my counsel suggested that Mr. Bennett interview me at his earliest convenience. Mr. Bennett agreed, and I was interviewed by him in his office for several hours on February 12, 1990.

On February 15, 1990 my counsel provided additional documents to Mr. Bennett which he requested on February 12. On February 20, 1990 my administrative assistant, Christopher Koch, and my legislative assistant, Gwendolyn Van Paasschen, were interviewed by Mr. Bennett and his staff.

On March 12, 1990, I testified before the Committee for approximately three hours, answering all questions posed by Senators Rudman and Pryor and by Mr. Bennett. The following day I produced an additional document to the Committee. On April 12, 1990, Ms. Van Paasschen testified before the Committee. On April 13, 1990, Mr. Koch testified before the Committee.

I recite the above events in order to demonstrate that I have fully cooperated with the Committee and its Special Counsel. I have produced all documents requested and made my staff available for examination by you and your staff. I have answered Mr. Bennett's questions on two separate occasions, and I have testified under oath before the Committee and answered the questions of Senators Rudman and Pryor. In short, I have done everything I can to facilitate the work of the Committee so that the Committee can efficiently and expeditiously address the allegations made against me.

I am very disappointed that the Committee has not reached a decision on these allegations so that a conclusion can be reached. Accordingly, I request an immediate meeting with the full Committee so that I may address the concerns, if any, that the Committee may have. It is clear that there is no merit to the allegations. At the present time this is the only recourse I have to resolve this matter. Justice delayed is justice denied.

I believe that whatever standards are ultimately chosen by the Committee to evaluate my conduct, they must be easily understood and fair at the time the activities under investigation occurred, as well as generally applicable to all Senators' activities on behalf of constituents or others who come to them with requests for assistance.

I take this opportunity to provide the Committee with my observations on the issues concerning my conduct which I am prepared to discuss withe the Committee. I believe these issues involve the following three questions. [Page: S16329]

1. Why did I meet with Edwin Gray on April, 2, 1987?

As I have testified, I attended the meeting with Mr. Gray because American Continental Corporation, the parent of Lincoln Savings and Loan, is a major employer in my state. Like any Senator, I am responsive to the needs of my constituents. I was informed that Lincoln Savings had been undergoing an unusually long examination by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. I had received a letter from a very reputable accounting firm, Arthur Young & Co., raising questions about the Bank Board's examination. I attended the meeting with Mr. Gray for informational purposes only, that is, to inquire why the examination was taking so long and to learn more about the examiners' appraisals of Lincoln's real estate investments.

I have stated clearly and unequivocally that I did not attend the meeting with Mr. Gray because of past campaign contributions received from Charles Keating. The evidence before the Committee supports this fact. On March 24, 1987--prior to the meeting with Mr. Gray--I met with Mr. Keating and advised him that I would not agree to negotiate for him or interfere with the actions being taken by the Bank Board. My staff has described this meeting to the Committee as being `tense'--a description to which I concur, because I let Mr. Keating know in no uncertain terms that I would not pursue the course he requested. My relationship with Charles Keating ended at that time.

I said 'no' to Mr. Keating at a time when his reputation was untarnished, unlike it is today. While Mr. Keating had been a fundraiser for me in my past campaigns, he was not involved in any fundraising activities for me after 1986. Furthermore, I have no reason to conclude that any past contributions he raised were in reality improperly funded corporate contributions. Nevertheless, on my own initiative, I have asked the Federal Election Commission to review the contributions and determine if they are legal and proper. The FEC has not yet issued a ruling.

I do not believe that my decision to meet with Mr. Gray created even the appearance that it was because of Mr. Keating's past fundraising. The undisputed facts are that I ended my relationship with Mr. Keating on March 24, 1987. Senator DeConcini subsequently set up the meeting with Mr. Gray. I attended because I saw it was an opportunity to make some inquiries to determine if a major Arizona employer's allegations regarding some specific issues were well-founded. I believe it was appropriate to make such and inquiry of an agency on behalf of a constituent.

2. What did I do at the meeting with Mr. Gray and the other regulators?

I attended the meeting to try to determine whether or not the allegations of bureaucratic maltreatment were well founded. During the meeting with Mr. Gray, he advised us that he was not familiar with the specifics of the Bank Board's examination of Lincoln Savings and Loan. Therefore, he suggested that we meet with the regulators from the Bank Board's San Francisco office. At that point, out of concern about the possible appearance of such a meeting, I specifically asked Mr. Gray if such a meeting would be proper. He assured me that it would. I made it clear that I sought no special favors for Lincoln Savings and wanted nothing improper done on its behalf. These actions demonstrate that, not only did I exert no inappropriate pressure, I acted affirmatively to make sure that my actions not be misinterpreted.

Since, Mr. Gray was unable to answer questions about the Bank Board's inquiry of Lincoln and since he suggested meeting with the San Francisco regulators the following week, I attended the second meeting on April 9, 1987 which was again set up by Senator DeConcini. At this meeting I made it clear that I was attending because American Continental Corporation was large employer in Arizona, but wanted no special favors for them. As reflected in the notes taken by William Black of the San Francisco FHLBB office, I said:

`One of or jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC is a big employer and important to the local economy. I would not want any special favors for them.

I also said:

'I do not want any part of our conversation to be improper. We asked Chairman Gray about that and he said it was not improper to discuss Lincoln.'

Mr. Black has since said, on the ABC Nightline program:

'I have never, and I do not believe that any other member of the San Francisco District, not Chairman Gray, have suggested that Senator McCain said anything improper at that meeting.'

In short, at neither meeting did I intervene of interfere in any way with the Bank Board's actions regarding Lincoln Savings and Loan. I did not negotiate for Lincoln Savings or Charles Keating. Rather, I used the meetings only to gain information about the matter, and as soon as I received that information, I was convinced that the Bank Board's actions were proper. When I was informed that the Board suspected criminal activity on the part of Lincoln Savings and was referring the matter to the Department of Justice, it was clear to me that my constituent's complaints were not well founded and that there was no further action I should take on its behalf.

3. What did I do after the meetings with the Bank Board officials?

Since the April 9, 1987 meeting, when I was first told of the regulators belief of improper activities at Lincoln, I have done nothing further for Lincoln, ACC, or Mr. Keating. I did not notify Mr. Keating, or anyone else affiliated with American Continental Corporation or Lincoln Savings and Loan, of what I had learned in the meetings. I told my staff that there was nothing more we should do. Since April 9, 1987, I have not discussed ACC or Lincoln Savings matters with any federal or state regulators. Since then I have no professional or official contact with Mr. Keating or Lincoln or ACC. Since 1986, I have neither solicited, nor accepted political contributions from Mr. Keating, Lincoln or ACC.

Mr. Gray has confirmed that this has been the course I have taken:

`. . . Senator John McCain--who I consider to be decent and honorable public servant--has taken a far different tack than (others attending the meetings). Having learned from the San Francisco regulators of Lincoln's misdeeds, he refused to continue any efforts to intervene on its behalf. Public reports claim that Mr. Keating judged Senator McCain a wimp because of this. Senator McCain is an authentic American hero, not a wimp. * * * he has chosen to take the high road.

I believe it is the responsibility of the Committee, not me, to discuss and evaluate the conduct of Senators DeConcini, Glenn, Riegle and Cranston. I have only addressed my conduct, because when I attended the meeting I spoke for myself, and no other Senator spoke for me. Therefore, the committee should judge me on the basis of my actions, and not the actions of my fellow Senators. If the Committee determines that it needs more time to evaluate the conduct of the other Senators, then it should take that time. But the Committee should not delay its decision on my conduct because it needs more time to evaluate others' conduct.

Your Committee has always understood and taken special notice of the fact that a Senator's reputation is adversely affected by being referred to in the kind of inquiry you are conducting. Each Senator must be responsible for his or her own conduct. But, I believe the Committee has an obligation to act in a way that its deliberations and conduct avoid causing additional damage to a Senator whenever that is possible.

With all due respect, the Committee has all of the information to determine that there is no reason to believe that I engaged in any improper conduct or violated any rule of the United States Senate. It would be very unfair for the Committee to postpone making a decision about my conduct because of a desire to continue reviewing the actions of another Senator. Therefore, I request an immediate meeting with the full Committee to discuss how and why this inquiry as to me should be concluded.

Sincerely,

John McCain,
U.S. Senator.

--

AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
Washington, DC, September 24, 1990.

Hon. Howell Heflin, Chairman,

Hon. Warren Rudman, Co-Chairman,
Select Committee on Ethics,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman and Co-Chairman: I have the privilege of representing Senator John McCain before your Committee. Kindly refer to Senator McCain's letter to you of June 5, 1990 and your reply of June 8, 1990.

I am in receipt of Mr. Bennett's letter of September 21, 1990 enclosing the materials developed during your Preliminary Inquiry and notifying us that we will meet with the Committee shortly in Executive Session.

I have reviewed all of the materials Mr. Bennett sent to me and have discussed these matters with Senator McCain. It is clear from a review of the materials and the testimony there is no reason or cause for a further hearing or proceeding involving Senator McCain. The evidence before you clearly demonstrates that Senator McCain did not engage in any improper conduct and did not violate the rules of the United States Senate. I am confident, knowing the integrity and exceptional ability of Mr. Bennett, that he must have arrived at the same conclusion.

It is time to free John McCain from this process and your inquiry. The failure to resolve this case now because of the activities of others would be a grave injustice to Senator McCain, his family and the people of Arizona.

Accordingly, Senator McCain respectfully requests:

1. A meeting with the Committee this week.

2. A final resolution of his case this week.

3. Release of Mr. Bennett's report to the public this week.

Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

John M. Dowd.

--

AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
Washington, DC, September 28, 1990.

Hon. Howell Heflin, Chairman,

Hon. Warren Rudman, Cochairman,
Select Committee on Ethics,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

[Page: S16330]

Dear Mr. Chairman and Cochairman: Unfortunately, I have not received a response to my letter of September 24, 1990. However, I did receive a call from Mr. Bennett inviting Senator McCain to appear before the Committee at 2:30 p.m. on October 4, 1990.

Senator McCain accepts your invitation and requests that the meeting with the Committee be open to the public and not in Executive session. Senator McCain renews his request that you release Mr. Bennett's report to the public and that you resolve his case on October 4, 1990.

I thank the Committee and its staff for all of the materials developed during this lengthy and difficult inquiry. The materials demonstrate clearly Mr. Bennett and his staff have turned over every stone. It is time for a decision.

Senator McCain has patiently cooperated with you during this lengthy process while being subjected to public obloquy in Arizona. Thus, he has paid a handsome price for the privilege of being investigated. I respectfully submit you now owe him a decision on his case and the opportunity to account to the people of Arizona for the questions raised by your inquiry.

At the beginning of this process, you committed to deal with each Senator on an individual basis. The Committee's failure to decide this matter when the evidence clearly indicates no misconduct by Senator McCain will undermine that committment and public confidence in the process.

Thank you again for your courtesy and cooperation.

Sincerely,
John M. Dowd.

--

Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, I have never seen Mr. Bennett's report. I do not know what it says. I am sure of what it does say, though, because I have had three meetings with the committee. I have answered every question clearly to their satisfaction and, obviously, the media reports are clear that I will be relieved of any culpability in this matter.

Let ms just say a few words about the investigation, as far as my relationship with Mr. Keating.

Mr. President, I will not go into a lot of detail. I had a 90-minute press conference in Phoenix, AZ, when this started a year ago. I have visited virtually every major editorial board in America. I have been on every talk show in America. I have had the allegations reviewed time and time again. I would be glad, if any Member of this body has any questions about my involvement with him, to go over them again.

But the key and crucial aspect of this investigation, Mr. President, was that when Mr. Keating asked me to do something that was improper, I walked away from Mr. Keating. Yes, we had been friends; he had been a supporter of mine; and, yes, he was a hot property around the State of Arizona and one of the wealthiest men. But I never lifted a finger for him. When he asked for my help in an improper fashion, I walked away. Maybe that is why he and his family have called me `the biggest disappointment in their lives.'

Those are the facts. That is what the outside special counsel has been looking into, and that is what he must have found in this investigation.

Mr. President, the special counsel's report has been gathering dust in the Ethics Committee for 6 weeks. I might remind you that after 3 weeks, the Ethics Committee had done nothing. Then the Ethics Committee released a press release saying that the 345-page document had to be examined by the committee.

Mr. President, we are going to vote, probably in a day or 2, on a few thousand page document that none of us have read. We routinely vote on appropriations bills of hundreds of pages around here, affecting the lives of virtually every American, which none of us have even read.

Mr. President, the Ethics Committee has had ample time to examine this report of the special counsel, and now they must act. Let us make the special counsel's report public. It is not some incomplete preliminary investigation, as it was advertised. It is a total, complete, thorough, multimillion dollar 9-month investigation. It is a complete investigation. The American people have the right to scrutinize it.

I believe, Mr. President, that the Ethics Committee must act before we adjourn. I will accept whatever judgment the Ethics Committee makes. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Mr. President, if the Ethics Committee cannot act, then we do not have an Ethics Committee. I have cooperated with the process at every turn. I have no quarrel with it. The problem is the conscious failure to end the process.

I note, for example, that the Ethics Committee has not even scheduled to meet today, despite nationwide questioning of whether there may be a coverup here. I am seeking, Mr. President, justice and fairness. I am concerned about the integrity of this institution, and I can accept any finding or any judgment. But I cannot accept a deliberate effort to withhold the truth, and the continued suspicion of a coverup.

Mr. President, there is far more at stake here than just my reputation; it is the reputation of the U.S. Senate. I am very concerned about that, too, as it has been a great honor and privilege for me to be a part of this body.

Mr. President, I would like to make a couple more comments, and I know that I am running out of time here. This is a very important issue.

Mr. President, I have four questions for my colleagues. If you were in my shoes, what would you do? Someday there my be an allegation against any Member of this body, with a claim that raises issues about your integrity. I patiently cooperated and held my tongue for 9 months while I was being investigated, fending off report after report, allegation after allegation, which clearly has done enormous damage to my political standing, but more importantly my reputation.

Yet after the completion 6 weeks ago of the investigation and the recommendation of the special counsel, no action has been taken. I ask my colleagues, if you were in my shoes, what would you do? I ask my colleagues a second question: If you were on the Ethics Committee and you had the report of an outside special counsel, after a 9-month investigation, that called for exoneration of some of your colleagues, a counsel who is well-respected and whose recommendations have always been followed in the past, how would you vote? Would you delay?

By the way, I want to say a word about Senator Warren Rudman, who I believe has made every effort as the vice chairman of this committee to get this thing resolved, and I am deeply appreciative of his efforts.

Mr. President, if you were in my shoes, what would you say to your constituents at home if we went out of session and this body did not act? How would you explain this to the American people, who have some questions about the credibility of this institution; how it is that after a 9-month investigation this body still fails to act?

Finally, if you were in my shoes, what would you tell your family? What would you tell your family when you go home to see them on weekends: that an investigation has been conducted in the most painful experience of your life, and yet with all the evidence in, with the investigation completed, that still the committee and the body fails to act?

Mr. President, my family has served this Nation with honor and sometimes distinction for over 200 years. My direct forebear was a member of General Washington's staff. My family has had the honor and privilege to serve this Nation from generation to generation, usually in defense of freedom.

I, myself, Mr. President, for 35 years have served this Nation, always with honor, always with integrity. I deserve an adjudication and a judgment in this issue. I do not deserve--and I only speak for myself--to be strung out week after week, month after month. The evidence is there; the American people deserve to know it; the evidence is there and the judgment must be made. Otherwise, it will reflect very badly, not only on me, but on this institution.

So my appeal is for fairness, justice, and decency, and I urge my colleagues to join me in seeking action on the part of the Ethics Committee.

I appreciate the indulgence of the distinguished President, and I yield the remainder of my time. [Page: S16331] END