European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - November 27, 1990, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Page 4 the stars and stripes tuesday november 27,1990panel focuses on Deconcini memo Washington a Arizona sen. Dennis Deconcini wrote to an aide in 1986 asking what a we can do to bring heat on a Federal banking regulator who was opposed by savings and loan owner Charles h. Keating jr., the Senate ethics committee was told monday. The senators memo to his staff aide Laurie a. Sedlmayr was written in december 1986, after Keating had made dear his opposition to top Bank regulator Edwin Gray who wanted Keatings Thrift to adhere to investment limits. Committee special counsel Robert s. Bennett cited the memo in questioning Sedlmayr As the panel held its fifth Day of hearings into allegations Deconcini and four other senators improperly intervened with regulators on behalf of Keating a financial contributor. Sedlmayr said she was aware Keating wanted Gray out of office. Deconcini wrote her a memo on dec. 11,1986, citing press accounts of potential financial and ethical problems facing Gray and asking a anything we can do to bring heat a she said she responded five Days later saying it was a probably unnecessary for him to take action and suggesting the senator a stay out of  Sedlmayr under questioning by Bennett said Keating was More aggressive than Many other businessmen she dealt with. A i found him to be something of a zealot and i Wasny to comfortable with that a be said. A i think the senator probably thought i was overstating the Case a she said. Keating who owned the now defunct Lincoln savings and loan and his associates contributed $13 million to the senators campaigns or favored causes. As the panel began its fifth Day of hear Ings in three weeks Deconcini d-ariz., was the Only one of the five senators under investigation who attended the session. The other four Are Republican John Mccain of Arizona and democrats Alan Cranston of California Donald Riegle of Michigan and John Glenn of Ohio. Sedlmayr was questioned about a memo she wrote to Deconcini in 1987 suggesting a possible Deal with the government on behalf of Keatings savings and loan. Deconcini denies he offered a Deal or tried to negotiate for Keating in the april 2,1987, meeting. Sedlmayr testified that Deconcini went to the april 2 meeting with three other senators and Gray despite being warned by an aide that the session was a a political  she testified that she was not concerned about the propriety of the meeting but was concerned Gray a would mis represent it later. Sedlmayr and other aides were not in. Eluded in the meeting but she said that when it ended Deconcini a said he was pretty  she said Deconcini recounted that Gray had said a i done to know anything about Lincoln. I done to have any information and you la have to meet with the regulators in san  the question of whether Deconcini offered a Deal on Keatings behalf is considered crucial to the ethics investigation. Bennett told the panel a there is overwhelming evidence Deconcini asked Gray to withdraw a regulation opposed by Keating in Exchange for a Promise by Lincoln to make More Home Loans. Lincoln was seized by the Federal government in april 1989 at a potential bailout Cost to taxpayers of More than $2 billion to cover insured deposits. / yet of s f floodwaters rack Washington state parts of the old interstate 90 floating Bridge left photo Between Seattle and Mercer Island Bob on Lake Washington after collapsing sunday during severe flooding. A new Bridge that runs parallel was closed because of danger from dislodged pieces of the old Bridge. At right a farm on fir Island near Conway becomes an Island As floodwaters creep up. More rain was forecast for monday but colder weather could ease the flooding by holding rain As Snow in upper  of military remains can use lower standards Washington up the supreme court has let stand a decision that military efforts to identify . Service members killed in action can legally meet less stringent standards than those accepted by most civilian medical examiners. The court refused monday to review a decision that the military cannot be sued for erring in a a positively identifying a set of remains As those of a . Serviceman shot Down during the Vietnam War and then refusing to return him to missing in action status. The Case involves a suit brought by the wife Mother and daughter of it. Col. Thomas Hart Iii one of 16 Crew members shot Down dec. 21, 1972, Over pause Laos while aboard an air Force ac-130 aircraft. Two Crew members parachuted to safety and a third was declared dead soon after the plane crash but the 13 others were listed As missing in action. In 1985, after a joint excavation of the crash site by . And laotian governments uncovered Bone fragments and other material the army Central identification Laboratory in Hawaii announced it had positively identified All 13 mias. It said Hart had been identified based in part on seven of some 50,000 Bone fragments recovered at the site. Harts wife Anne sued to have an expert forensic anthropologist examine the remains. He found that positive identification was impossible based on the evidence. When she objected to the governments classifying her husband As dead she was told that if she did not wish to accept the remains they would be buried anyway at Arlington National cemetery with full military honors. At the same time an Independent civilian inquiry into the army Laboratory a operation was approved by the Secretary of the air Force and burial of the disputed remains was postponed. The civilian panel found that Only two of the 13 members of Harts Crew could be positively identified from the remains and he was not one of them. The government acknowledged that a some of the pause identifications did not appear to be justified according to Standard forensic methods and therefore could not withstand scientific  the government notified the families of the 13 Crew members but refused to return Harts status to a unaccounted  Anne Hart her daughter Gillian Hart and the lieutenant colonels Mother Vera Lee Hart filed suit in Florida under the Federal tort claims act. Under the act the government maintains immunity from suits involving discretionary Federal functions or duties but it waives immunity from suits for injuries or losses due to government negligence. The exception for discretionary functions was designed to prevent courts from second guessing government decisions. Federal court in Pensacola Fla awarded the Harts $632,800 in compensation after a jury found the government guilty of a intentional infliction of emotional  but the 11th . Circuit court of appeals reversed the decision finding that government efforts to account for identify and Bury dead service members Are based on policy judgments and therefore immune from suit under the discretionary function exception to the tort claims act. A government efforts to identify deceased personnel Are clearly discretionary functions a wrote the 11th circuit although it acknowledged that the government employs far less stringent standards in obtaining a a a positive identification than would be done in civilian forensics. Anne Hart who claimed to have some reports that her husband was alive and being held prisoner argued that Labelling him accounted for without stronger scientific proof could encourage captors to kill him. The government argued that if its Soldier identification program were a constrained by the dictates of forensic anthropology currently prevailing in the civilian scientific Community cil his a the Hawaii Laboratory ongoing identification project would be severely  it argued that the identification program reflects a the governments policy that to the extent possible remains of american servicemen killed in action should be identified and afforded proper burials. This policy embodies political moral and military