Chapter 19: October Surprises
“
I would refer you to the comments made by Vice President Glenn yesterday which I think speak for themselves. I will not comment further on the allegations regarding the Vice President or, for that matter, the Senators who have been claimed to have influenced regulators on behalf Charles Keating and the companies he owns. This is a matter for the Senate and the Justice Department to investigate and while the allegations are deeply concerning we must not rush to judgment. Their investigations will uncover the truth and we can move forward once they have concluded.” – President Geraldine Ferraro, October 10, 1989
Every presidency has moments that define them, from scandals and crises to legislative triumphs and diplomatic breakthroughs. There was Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis, Johnson and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Carter and the Iran Hostage crisis, and Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair to name a few from the second half of the 20th century. For President Ferraro three of those moments happened in the month of October 1989 when one scandal would end only to be replaced by another that would test her promise of running an honest and transparent administration. At the same time the first major international crisis of the Ferraro administration would occur, one that would have repercussions for many years to come and prove to be a headache for Ferraro and Democrats alike as its wider impact was felt. Any discussion of the Ferraro presidency would not be complete without mentioning the events of this month and the impact they would have on the course of the next three years and beyond.
It began with a filing of Chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 13, 1989 by the Phoenix-based real estate company American Continental Corporation (ACC), owned by Charles Keating, after mounting losses over the course of 1988 and the first six months of 1989. The next day its subsidiary, Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which accounted for 90% of ACC’s assets would be seized by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). While initially this seemed to be just another case of a real estate failure brought about by unscrupulous, risky practices that defined the savings and loan crisis it would soon catch the eye of the national news media after former FHLBB chair Edwin Gray came out publicly on August 6 regarding a series of meetings in April 1987 involving federal regulators and five senators. In an article in the
Dayton Daily News he stated that Senators Donald Riegle (D-MI), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), Alan Cranston (D-CA) and John McCain (R-AZ) as well as Vice President John Glenn (who was then the Senior Senator from Ohio) had attempted to shield Keating from regulatory action by the FHLBB. This sparked further investigation by national and local newspapers alike over the course of the next two months which, by the beginning of October, had become a media frenzy.
As details of the Keating Five scandal, as it became known, began to consume media attention in the first few days of October questions were raised about whether Ferraro had been aware of John Glenn’s involvement when she selected him to be her running mate in July 1988 and exactly how deep his involvement and those of the four sitting Senators went with Charles Keating. On October 4 the
Washington Post reported that the Justice Department and the FBI were expanding their current investigations into Keating to include several of the Senators believed to be most involved with Keating: DeConcini, Riegle, and Cranston. Two days later the Senate Ethics Committee chaired by Senator Howell Heflin (D-AL) announced it would be conducting its own investigation into the conduct of DeConcini, Riegle, Cranston, and McCain regarding the meetings with Keating and federal regulators and any actions they may have taken afterward. As pressure mounted on a response by the White House to the growing scandal Ferraro and her close advisors including Chief of Staff Anne Wexler, in coordination with the staff of Vice President Glenn, decided that it would be best for the Vice President to hold a press conference to respond to the growing controversy and defend his own conduct. That press conference, which took place on October 8, saw Vice President Glenn express regret for having attended those meetings but defending his own character saying that he “never intended to intimidate federal regulators into ending their inquiries into Lincoln Savings and Loan Association” but that he was “ensuring the fair treatment of a constituent.” The response was mixed, with many questions remaining as to the extent of John Glenn’s involvement and whether he would be included in the ongoing investigations into Charles Keating as well. Ferraro’s approval rating dipped to 44% in the second week of October as the scandal took its toll on her administration despite efforts to push back against it.
Republicans in Congress were especially aggressive in calling for an investigation into VP Glenn, hoping to spin the Ferraro administration as being corrupt and ethically challenged and questioning President Ferraro’s commitment to rooting out corruption in Washington when her own Vice President appeared to be part of the problem. However, they didn’t hold the power to investigate the Vice President with Democrats in the Senate hoping to keep their inquiry focused solely on the sitting Senators involved in the scandal. Despite this, the media continued to reveal details about the connections between Charles Keating and the members of the Keating Five with a torrent of stories over the first half of October noting the various donations from Keating to the re-election campaigns of four of the five members of the Keating Five as well as to PACs they were associated with. Public anger was palpable as many of the California residents who had been tricked by Charles Keating into accepting risky bonds that proved to be worthless as well as having their life savings wiped out, many of whom were elderly retirees, were plastered on television screens across the country as the human impact of the savings and loan crisis became clear. As a result, a planned vote on the Financial Restructuring and Reform Act on October 11 was scrapped as pressure mounted for a more aggressive response by the federal government to the savings and loan crisis.
Proposals that had previously been pushed by President Ferraro but had been scrapped under pressure from conservatives and the savings and loan lobby were suddenly back on the table including the separation of savings and loan and commercial banking activities and a restructuring of the federal deposit insurance system. However, opposition remained among conservatives in both parties to a large restructuring of America’s banking system. Nevertheless, in an effort to save face and demonstrate that Congress was serious about dealing with the savings and loan crisis a revised version of the FRRA was drafted in mid-October which reversed some of the deregulation of the savings and loan industry which had occurred in the early 1980s (although many loopholes remained that would be exploited in the coming years) and included more aggressive efforts to compensate those whose had been negatively impacted by the bankruptcy of numerous savings and loan associations. This would end up coming to a vote on the floor of the House by the end of October and, after much deliberation, would be passed by the Senate and sent to Ferraro’s desk by the end of November. Even with the passage of the FRRA the Keating Five scandal itself did not leave media attention as more details emerged over the coming weeks and months as investigations into the matter progressed.
As one scandal continued to capture public attention another one came to an end to much relief for President Ferraro and her family. On October 16, after nearly one year of investigation, John Zaccaro was cleared of charges of bribery in the construction of a housing complex in Queens in 1983 by the grand jury that had been investigating the case. Nevertheless, the proceedings had revealed poor judgement on his part as attested by various witnesses and reinforced perceptions that Zaccaro did not go by-the-books in his business dealings and was associated with shady figures involved with organized crime syndicates in Queens. In a statement that day Ferraro expressed that she was “grateful that the outcome confirmed the honorable character of [her] husband” and that her family “was ready to move on from the trouble of the past year.” Her opponents were not so keen to let this controversy pass, in part because the investigation had cast doubt on her husband’s integrity as a businessman as well as the fact that her administration was in the throes of a corruption scandal that contradicted Ferraro’s attempt to portray a façade of transparency and ethical behavior in contrast to her predecessor. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole expressed concern over the conduct of John Zaccaro, saying that President Ferraro “should acknowledge her husband’s questionable business practices” and that it was possible that this could be “just the tip of the iceberg of what [John Zaccaro] may have done.” House Minority Leader Bob Michel made only a short statement on the matter which said that he was “concerned by the details that the investigation had revealed about the First Gentleman” but did not go as far as Dole in questioning whether Zaccaro had more skeletons in his closet that had yet to be revealed. The most aggressive response came from House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich who seriously questioned the outcome of the grand jury investigation into John Zaccaro and in a press conference stated that it was the “duty of the House of Representatives to investigate whether President Ferraro was aware of the activities of her husband” and if he committed “any criminal acts that she was complicit in.”
While the end of John Zaccaro’s bribery investigation brought a welcome relief for President Ferraro, that would soon be complicated in the following days by the sudden and unexpected invasion of Kuwait by Iraqi troops in the early morning hours of October 23. Kuwait City would fall by noon as Kuwaiti Emir Sheik Jaber III al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah and his family fled through the desert to seek refuge in Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi assault. Within 48 hours the Iraqi Republican Guard had control of most of Kuwait with the last remaining units of the Kuwait Armed Forces fleeing over the border to Saudi Arabia where much of the Kuwaiti Air Force had already been moved to. Such rapid developments caught President Ferraro and the rest of the international community off guard although warning signs had been building for months that tensions between Iraq and Kuwait were mounting.
Following the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq War in 1988 the Iraqi government was saddled with $60 billion in debt, owing nearly $14 billion of that total to Kuwait alone which it had borrowed over the course of the war. Despite pleas for forgiveness from Iraq the Kuwaiti government remained firm in its commitment to debt repayment. Even a series of meetings over the course of July and early August 1989 between representatives of the Kuwaiti and Iraqi governments failed to reach a settlement on the issue. Instead, Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz alleged that Kuwait had been slant-drilling across its border into the Rumaila oil field and demanded compensation for the oil he claimed had been “stolen” by Kuwait. The Kuwaiti government swiftly denied these accusations as an attempt to justify military action against the country with several firms working in the Rumaila field also dismissing the veracity of Iraq’s claims. Saddam Hussein had already been angered by Kuwaiti oil production considerably exceeding its OPEC quota which, amid an oil glut since 1986 that had reduced the price of oil from $27 a barrel to $10 a barrel, prevented Iraq’s war-torn economy from recovering to pre-war levels. In addition the Kuwaiti government had in fact petitioned OPEC earlier in the year to increase its quota which would further reduce oil prices and harm Iraq’s economy. Seeing the refusal by Kuwait to reduce oil production as an act of aggression and growing increasingly dissatisfied with indecision on the part of other OPEC members to reduce production quotas, Saddam began a military build-up on the border with Kuwait by the end of September 1989 that resulted in the stationing of nearly 90,000 troops there by the middle of October. While the CIA confirmed this troop build-up, which prompted action from Defense Secretary Nunn to move cruisers into the Persian Gulf as a precaution, neither the State nor Defense Departments believed that Iraq was preparing to invade Kuwait and was simply putting pressure on the Kuwaiti government to agree to debt forgiveness and a reduction in oil production.
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait received widespread international condemnation even from its traditional allies such as France and India, with the American and the Kuwaiti delegations to the UN requesting an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council hours after the invasion had started which lead to the passage of a resolution condemning the invasion and calling for the immediate withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory. The following day the Arab League also passed a resolution calling for internal negotiations to end the conflict within the league but warned against intervention by outside powers. On October 27 the UN passed a resolution placing economic sanctions on Iraq as both China and the Soviet Union placed their own arms embargoes on the country. This was followed shortly afterward with another resolution authorizing a naval blockade as a means of enforcing the sanctions, with the Ferraro administration praising these steps as a “necessary diplomatic response to the violation of Kuwait’s sovereignty” and expressing hope that the pressure would force Saddam to the negotiating table and allow for a “swift and peaceful resolution of the conflict.” Within the administration, however, there was doubt that Saddam would simply withdraw from Kuwait and resignation to the idea that Kuwait’s occupation and de facto annexation by Iraq would end up having to be accepted by the international community because of division over whether to engage in a direct military intervention to dislodge Iraqi troops from Kuwait or continue to pursue diplomatic means to pressure Iraq to withdraw. As October came to a close President Ferraro was still deliberating on any further course of action to take in response to the invasion as pressure mounted from both within the United States and from international partners to take decisive action in the face of Iraqi aggression.
The economic repercussions of the Invasion of Kuwait, however, would not be fully realized until months later. In its immediate aftermath the price of oil rose from $18 per barrel to $24 per barrel but, by January 1990, the price rose to an average of $38 per barrel as concerns over the loss of oil supplies from Kuwait and threats to Saudi Arabian oil production rippled through the market. Market indicators would turn negative in November 1989 as forecasts for GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 1989 and the first quarter of 1990 were revised downward although most forecasters predicted very weak but positive growth. Consumer confidence fell by nearly 1% over the final months of 1989 amid concerns over weakening economic growth, increasing inflation, and a potential war in the Persian Gulf. As the new year began it was clear that the United States was entering a recession as the unemployment rate ticked up from 5.4% in October 1989 to 6.1% in January 1990 and economic data showed that the US economy had contracted in the fourth quarter of 1989. This was confirmed in April 1990 when the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its latest economic report showing a further contraction of the US economy in the first quarter of 1990 and it was officially declared that the US economy was now in a recession. For President Ferraro the Invasion of Kuwait would turn out to be a curse on her presidency even as it took away news coverage from the Keating Five scandal and the difficulties of her first nine months in office. As an untested leader and a woman whom many doubted was strong and experienced enough to deal with an international crisis of this magnitude, Geraldine Ferraro would have much to prove in the coming months as one of the most difficult and important sagas of her presidency unfolded before the American people and the entire world.