Advanced Search
Peru -christ statue
Peru mountains
Peru (towns, mountains, people)
Lima, Peru
Overview of Plaza San Martin with cars and buses driving around the square, adult Peruvian men and women pedestrians walking around the plaza; statue of Jose de San Martin visible in the middle of the plaza. Two lanes of traffic traveling down street; one lane turns onto another street, mixed adult pedestrians waiting to cross street.
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE 95519 Peru, Inca Ruins
Peru, misc.
Peru: The Vanishing Animal"
Peru: The Vanishing Animal"
August 2, 1994 - Part 3
(00:05:11) Senator SARBANES. Now, that's a different answer than the path I seem to be taking, was led down when I was being told there was no specific conversation. Mr. STEINER. Well, Senator Senator SARBANES. See, it's interesting because Mr. Altman did the same thing when he was before our Committee, and we have to parse your words very carefully here. Now, you do, as I understand it, recall conversations in which Mr. Altman expressed the view on this question; is that correct? Mr. STEINER. It's conceivable-I can't recall any conversations directly that Senator SARBANES Strike the word "directly." 375 Mr. STEINER. I believe Mr. Altman has said that it is not surprising that our recollections differ and they do differ. Senator SARBANES. Why isn't it surprising? Mr. STEINER. We're speaking about events that took place many months ago, Senator. Senator SARBANES. Do you think Ms. Hanson, of her own volition, would go to Nussbaum in the White House to give him this information? Mr. STEINER. I think she might, yes. Senator SARBANES. You do. She said yesterday that it was not conceivable to her that she would do this. Mr. STEINER. I did not listen to her testimony, Senator. Senator SARBANES. That's what she said. Do you disagree with that? Mr. STEINER. She certainly has a better sense of her own responsibilities and course of action than I do. Senator SARBANES. Would it be your evaluation that she might go do it on her own? What's your evaluation of that? You know her. You know Altman. You know how it works. You know the interaction between them. Mr. STEINER. As I said, Senator, I think it's possible that she would do it under her own direction, Senator SARBANES. Mr. Nye, what do you think about that? Mr. NYE. My understanding of those events, and at the time I was not aware of them, was that she actually informed Bernie Nussbaum at the end of a meeting that they were having already on the subject of a Waco, Texas report involving the AFT--that's my understanding recently gained. To the extent that she would have, at the end of the meeting, pulled him aside and informed him of that does not seem incredulous to me. Senator SARBANES. Do you think she did it because she had been directed to do so by Mr. Altman? Mr. NYE. That I have no knowledge of Senator SARBANES. You've never heard any discussions by either Altman or Hanson on this point? Mr. NYE. At what time? Senator SARBANES, Any time. Mr. NYE. In the very Senator SARBANES. I am asking questions in the most general fashion to elicit the most responsive and broadest answers. I want to establish that as a premise. And therefore, I don't want an answer that says, well, now, if specifically-and then you exclude it out. So I'm asking you at any time Mr. NYE. Right. And what I'd like to, respond Senator SARBANES. -directly or indirectly. Mr. NYE. What I'd like to respond to you and that's why I was asking your time frame, was that I have had one conversation with Roger Altman in response to a press article recently on the question of the difference of recollection. It was the Sue Schmidt article, I forget the date, but it was a Sunday article recently, the past cople weeks. In it-and his response to this was simply that it was an honest difference of recollection, and given the event happened approximately a year ago or so, I took that to be the case. 376 Senator DODD. Senator Sarbanes, though, asked-you know this person. You know Jean Hanson, don't you? Mr. NYE. Yes, I do. Senator DODD. Tell us about her demeanor. This is almost a demeanor question, a stylistic question. A lawyer with a major law firm, an independent person, obviously a successful individual. Did she strike you as the kind of person who on her own direction her" own volition would decide to go down and see the Chief Legal Counsel for the Presidency at the White House? Mr. NYE. That's what I was just trying to explain. I believeagain, this is all recently. I wasn't aware of this at the time, but I believe that she attended a meeting on another subject all together, and then pulled him aside at the end Senator DODD. You're not being responsive to the question. I'm' not trying to hold you to some rigid standard here. I'm asking you an opinion about somebody. We don't know her you do. Mr. NYE, My response to the Senator was simply that I didn't think it was inconceivable. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. Could I just put a couple questions to Mr. Foreman? Mr. Foreman, bow long have you been the Deputy General Counsel for the Treasury? Mr. FOREMAN. January 1991, Senator. Senator SARBANES. And how long have you been the Chief Legal Officer there? Mr. FOREMAN. I'm sorry. I've been the Chief Ethics Officer for the same period of time.
August 2, 1994 - Part 3
(00:10:22) Senator SARBANES. I'm sorry. Mr, FOREMAN. It comes with the position of Deputy General Counsel, comes the Designated Agency Ethics Official position as well. Senator SARBANES, Did you-I'm Dot quite clear on your background. Did you come to this position working up through the civil service ranks, or was there a political dimension to your obtaining this position? Mr. FOREMAN. Sir, I think both. I was a Career Senior Executive Service Lawyer in the Department of State. I resigned from that position in the summer of 1988 for a few months, worked as a volunteer in the Bush campaign, went back to a career position in the State Department and then was selected for the Deputy General Counsel person as a political noncareer appointee. Senator SARBANES. I see. So you left your job in 1988 to go into George Bush's political campaign; is that correct? Mr. FOREMAN. No money, as a volunteer, that's correct, sir. Senator SARBANES. Then after the campaign, what happened? Mr. FOREMAN. After the campaign, I got a call from the State Department Legal Advisor's Office where I had worked, and they asked me to return to a career attorney position, and I did so. Senator SARBANES. And then what happened? Mr. FOREMAN. Then I was selected for a Career Senior Executive service position as an assistant legal advisor a year or so later, and then in December, I guess, of 1990, 1 got a call from Ms. HansonJeanne Archibald at the Treasury Department asking me to come 377 interview for 'the position of Deputy General Counsel which I did not even know or was aware was open, Senator SARBANES. That was a political appointment? Mr. FOREMAN. The position was a noncareer position, Senator. Senator SARBANES. Noncareer. Mr. FOREMAN. That's correct. So I went from a career senior executive position to a noncareer senior executive position. Senator SARBANES. Then I take it our name had been floating around in the personnel office at the White House for that Mr. FOREMAN. It may have been, Senator, but my name was specifically suggested to Ms. Archibald by another former General Counsel of the Treasury Department; that she might be interested in interviewing me for the position. Senator SARBANES. Then when the new Administration came in? Mr. FOREMAN. When the new Administration came in, Mr. Altman met with me, asked me to stay on as Acting General Counsel until a new General Counsel bad been confirmed. Senator SARBANES. And then what happened? Mr. FOREMAN, Then Ms. Hanson asked me to stay on. Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will recess now, and we'll resume at approximately 2:15 p.m. (00:13:25) [Recess.] (00:13:27) Hearings hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG close out morning coverage (00:15:16) WETA logo, PBS funding credits (end of tape #10067)
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(10:49:19) PBS funding credits (10:49:28) Whitewater Coverage title screen (10:49:39) In tv studio hearing hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG introduce afternoon's testimony, they also speak to STEVE ROBERTS of U.S. News and World Report (10:56:40) Hearing resumes: The CHAIRMAN. .any other and Roger Altman would have no involvement. Now I must tell you that what I've just read to you, which is verbatim from your diary, cross-connects and validates the same' information that we have from other sources. So I find this to be quite accurate. My first question to you would be, nearly as you know, sitting here today, and testifying under oath as you are, as you did when you provided this to the deposition attorneys, is this an accurate account? Was this your best sense at the time of what constituted an accurate account of what was taking place? Mr. STEINER. Senator, I believe if you would have asked me at the time to describe to you as precisely as I could the events that took place, I would not describe them exactly as I have here because, as I said before, my purpose in writing this was not to provide the most precise narrative I could, My purpose was to reflect back on events that had occurred. The CHAIRMAN. But you see, in some sense, that makes this an even more valuable account, I realize we're caught up in all of these infinitesimal shadings and nuances of words and phrases and suppositions, but I think when you were writing this, you're the Chief of Staff at the Treasury Department. You re not some lowlevel functionary. You're one of the top people over there because you had the confidence, background, and so forth that have entitled the judgment that you've received to have that job. You're a key person. The fact that you're 28 years old might cause someone to think that maybe you were a lower level person. You're one of the highest ranking people in one of the major Cabinet agencies in Government. You're a key player. As a result, you carry a lot of responsibility. So when you gave this account to yourself, you had no reason to shade the truth. You had no reason to exaggerate. You bad no reason to go into this endless sort of shaving and parsing. I assume when you were talking to yourself, that you were being straightforward, honest, and candid. Moreover, and I'm going to say it to you again, everything else I've been able to gather from other witnesses supports the accuracy of this account. So you don't need to back away from it for any reasons of accuracy unless you want to tell us today there's something in here that's inaccurate and I'm not talking about fly specking. I'm 379 talking, as Senator Sarbanes was earlier, the general accuracy and thrust of what you've said. Now, you've said a lot of important things here, and you've said there was a major struggle over this recusal decision. Clearly, there was. There's abosolutely no question that Roger Altman made a decision to recuse himself, went to the White House, indicated that's what he was going to do and he got a lot of negative feedback, very negative feedback and he then decided that he better not do that, at least not right then. Isn't that the truth? Mr. STEINER. To the best of my recollection, Senator, Mr. Altman was planning to recuse himself or leaning toward recusing himself. When he went to the White House, as be's related to me because I was not at that meeting, Mr. Nussbaum, as I've said, made some powerful arguments about why that was not the wise course of action. That is the events as I
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(15:40:48)(tape #10069 begins) But I think what's important here is not to make these sweeping statements about an Administration because of this one problem. Obviously, there are political reasons why there are those people who don't want us to look at the fact that we are working on a crime bill, and health reform, and all the other things that we're doing, things that have been neglected for 12 years, and I understand that, but I would say this: We know, in this particular circumstance, that there were some very good people who were really concerned that a press leak could derail the Administration from its very important agenda. And because too many people, had too many conversations, and were involved in too many meetings and in my view, using press leaks as an excuse to hold even more meet- ings. They undermined their own purpose, which was not to get off course. So that's a problem and I think everybody can learn from that. All of us in our lives. There was no criminality, no obstruction of justice, and no interference with the investigation. I think that's very important to the American people. We can learn from this, but lets not blow this up into proportions that it is not. Senator Gramm longs for the day when a Republican will take back the White House. I can understand that -from his perspective. But I would urge him, if be wants to put all this into perspective read the Haldeman diaries which I'm in the middle of reading. You want to really take a very good look at the White House, this was a diary that was kept for history, and it talked about how poli- tics and enemies lists and other things ran a White House and ran amuck, so there's something for us to learn in all of these things that occur. But they have to be put into perspective. 404 So in closing, let me say this to whoever cares, don't let press leaks or stories about press leaks run a White House or a Senate office, or a Government office. We should do our jobs for the American people, that's what we're supposed to do, and don't worry about the press. It won't be good no matter what you do. Just come to grips with that from day one. Let private counsel handle matters that happened before the President became President. Keep it separate. That's what I'm learning from all this. And, I hope the Administration is learning that and I want to thank these witnesses. You have been, I think, candid with us. This has been I look at you, I see the youth, and the loveliness difficult especially for you, Mr. Steiner, because as exuberance of youth, the exaggeration of youth, along with some of the problems of And I think you, of all people here on this panel, should talk to the guys with the gray beards and the gray hairs such as Senator Dodd. He's got gray hair. You can talk to him, too. [Laughter.] Senator BOXER. But, just because you're young doesn't mean your opinion isn't worth something, as Senator Kerry has stated. I think you showed us in this diary some of the feelings that are missing in public life today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator D'Amato, anybody else on your side? Senator D'AMATO. No, Mr. Chairman, but I do think, if I might respond to my friend and colleague, formerly a Brooklynite, now a Senator from California Senator BOXER. That's why I can keep up with you. [Laughter.] Senator D'AMATO. And you go beyond. [Laughter.] Senator BOXER. That's a compliment, coming from you.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(15:45:20) Senator D'AMATO. I want to know that I think, without even having checked with my colleagues, we could enter into a Unanimous Consent Agreement that we agree with lour observation about the press. It doesn't matter what you do, its not going to be good. The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else seeking recognition or can we con. elude this panel and go to the next witness? Seeing no requests for time, let me thank these witnesses for their appearance and well conclude your testimony at this time and excuse you. We'll take a brief 3-minute recess here to allow Mr. Altman to come into the room and then we'll resume the Committee session. (15:46:00) [Recess.] (15:46:05) Commentary of hearings hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG
Goldberg to UN - Chosen to Succeed Adlai Stevenson
President Johnson's choice to succeed Adlai Stevenson, Justice Arthur J. Goldberg of the Supreme Court, appears at a White House press conference & comments on his call to the difficult & exacting post as Ambassador to the United Nations. Washington DC MS Justice ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG posing outside White House with wife Dorothy Goldberg and son Robert Goldberg. MS - President LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON (LBJ) speaking at outdoor press conference in Rose Garden, Goldberg s and Secretary of State DEAN RUSK standing in BG. MS Arthur J. Goldberg shaking hands with Lyndon Johnson, assuming podium. Nice MS three 16mm film cameras with obese magazines on tripods, cameramen filming. Justice Goldberg speaking, "Of Adlai Stevenson's departure & my appointment, I can only borrow words once uttered on a similar occasion by Thomas Jefferson, 'I succeed him. No one could replace him.' I am grateful to the President for judging me capable of the effort I now commence. I am grateful to the Secretary of State, my friend and my former colleague in the cabinet for welcoming me so warmly to this post. It is with great humility that I undertake the role of our nation's advocate of peace in the council of nations."
US Ships Reactivated
The Hunter's Point Division of the San Francisco, Calif., Naval Shipyard seethes with the activity of 7000 workers reactivating a number of navy units which have been in mothballed desuetude. It's a work that keeps the great yard going seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Panning high angle LS Hunter's Point naval shipyard. H/a TLS - shipyard workers on ships in dry-dock. MS two workers scraping paint off deck. MS worker testing small caliber gun mount turret. MS worker wearing protective jumpsuit & mask, using spray gun on railing. Rear view MS worker welding hull. TLS worker spraying undercoat to hull. MS man in hard hat inspecting electrical room. TLS empty dry-dock slip. Panning high angle LS shipyard.
Africa III - Eland Antelope
(Tape One) LS of two Eland walking by, zebras nearby
Africa III - Eland Antelope
(Tape One) Eland walking, seems to have a bunch of dried grass stuck up in its horns 07:13:50 Eland drinking, looks up, turns around and walks away
Africa III - Wildebeest
(Tape One) Wildebeest on a hill, walking, bending down to feed upon grass 07:15:30 Gray and black faced wildebeest standing on hill, looks towards camera 07:16:09 Two gray and black faced wildebeest standing on hill, one licks itch, uses hind leg to itch face
Africa III - Grant's Gazelle
(Tape One) Grant's gazelle thrashing a plant with horns to itch behind his ears, goes over to smell another plant, starts to rip leaves off and eat, walks
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(15:51:30) Hearing resumes: AFTERNOON SESSION The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come back into session and our witness this afternoon will be Mr. Roger Altman. Do you want to come on up to the table, Mr. Altman. Let me just say as you I re being seated that I know you have a statement to make and all the Members of the Committee, I believe, now have a copy of that statement before. them. Let us now, in the normal order of things, ask you to stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. TESTIMONY OF ROGER ALTMAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; FORMER ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. ALTMAN. I do. The CHAIRMAN. Very good. You have a statement for us and we're going to make the full statement a part of the record. You deliver whatever part of it you want at the outset and then we'll go to questions. Mr. ALTMAN. Good afternoon. The CHAIRMAN. Incidentally, before you begin, let me just say that these mikes sometimes have been working strongly and sometimes not. I would encourage you to pull it as close to yourself as you can so you can be heard throughout the room. Thank you. Mr. ALTMAN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Roger Altman. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, can he pull the mike. Thank you. Mr. ALTMAN. My name is Roger Altman. On January 21, 1993, 1 was unanimously confirmed by the Senate as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and have served in that capacity since then. That was the second time I was unanimously confirmed to serve in the Treasury. Over the 4 years of the Carter Administration, I served as Assistant Secretary for Domestic Finance and had the privilege of working closely with this Committee at that time, especially on the Chrysler and on the New York City rescues. I feel privileged to have served in these capacities. Public service has always been an important part of my life, as it was for my parents. Over those years, and in those positions, I may have made some poor decisions or other mistakes, but my integrity has never been questioned. Now, Mr. Chairman, I read that I've already been convicted and sentenced even though the trial hasn't taken place. I hope and I believe today's process will be fairer than that. I intend to demonstrate convincingly that I conducted myself properly, and I testifi- 406 fied accurately and when I finish today, I believe reasonable Members of this Committee will reach the same conclusion. Let me address, first, the very basic issue as to whether a:% effort was made by the Treasury or White House staff to impede or alter in any way the criminal or civil processes of the RTC as they relate to Madison Guaranty. I include within that question the issue of whether any information was improperly imparted to the White House. To the best of my knowledge there was no effort on the part of any White House or Treasury staff to impede or affect in any way the- RTC investigations. Moreover, no Member of the RTC or Treasury staff to my knowledge, improperly imparted any information about Madison Guaranty to the White House. I did not do so myself and I am not aware of anyone else doing so.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(15:55:46) Three independent investigations have addressed these questions. First, we had the results of the legal investigation by the Independent Counsel, Mr. Fiske. All issues involved in his investigation were fully and thoroughly investigated including a review of my testimony -before this Committee. And we are all familiar with his conclusions. There was also the report of the Office of Government Ethics, which Secretary Bentsen released on Sunday. This concluded that there bad been no unethical activities on the part of any Treasury personnel, The Office of Government Ethics is an independent body. As with Mr. Fiske, it had access to all documents and took testimony under oath from all those involved, including your witnesses. There is also the report of Mr. Cutler, White House Counsel, on the question of any unethical behavior by White House staff, He concluded there was none. These investigations have confirmed that the Clinton Administration did not interfere in any aspect of the Madison Guaranty case. There is no evidence, Mr. Chairman-I repeat-no evidence that either the criminal or civil aspects were compromised, delayed, or altered in any way. Simply none. I believe that the conclusions of these three separate investigations are absolutely correct. And I ask the Committee to bear in mind the larger context of my involvement in the handling of the Madison matter by the RTC. Most importantly, I never made any decisions of any kind with respect to the Madison case. I was committed, as I told the White House staff and others, to have the RTC General Counsel, Ellen Kulka, make whatever determination was necessary with respect to any civil claims arising from Madison. My meeting with the White House staff on February 2 was cleared by both Treasury General Counsel and the Designated Treasury Ethics Officer. I obtained two written ethics opinions stating that my recusal was not required, and I recused myself from the Madison matter on February 25 without ever having made any decision in that case. Second, let me turn to what I believe is the most important issue between this Committee and me, namely my testimony before you on February 24. Mr. Chairman, I do not have perfect recall, and I may have heard or understood questions in a way that was not intended by the Senator asking the question. And if I did so, I sincerely apolologize to all Members of the Committee. But I do want to be clear. In no way did I intend to mislead or not to provide complete and 407 forthright answers. I have too much respect for this Committee, for our system of Government and for the need for full and forthright communications between the Executive and the Legislative Branches. Let me add here that I understand how a reasonable person reading my testimony and listening to all the testimony which has come before this Committee could believe I was not as forthcoming as I should have been. The burden is mine to explain that I was doing the best I could at the time and I intend to do that today. Let me turn to describing the interaction between the Clinton Administration and the RTC. First, when Mr. Casey resigned as CEO in March 1993, the Administration had only taken office 5 or 6 weeks beforehand and had not yet chosen its nominee for this position. Indeed, only two U.S. Treasury officials had even been confirmed, Secretary Bentsen and me.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:00:39) Secretary Bentsen asked me to assume this position until a permanent CEO was nominated and confirmed. As others will attest I neither sought nor wanted this assignment, but I accepted it because there was no one else. And during the discussions about my appointment, there was never any mention by anyone of Madison Guaranty. In June of last year we submitted a nomination for permanent Chairperson of the RTC. Our expectation was that he would be promptly confirmed, and I could leave the agency. Our nominee was a Republican, and an active one. He was well qualified for this position and the Administration supported his nomination throughout the congressional session, but the nomination was not taken up by the Senate. After Congress completed its work last fall, be withdrew his name from further consideration. Let me make an observation, if I may, about this situation. The Administration nominated an active Republican for the top RTC job. That is not consistent with trying to exert undue control over the agency or any of its investigations. When I became RTC Chairman, the agency was managed on a day-to- day basis by its two senior vice presidents, Bill Roelle and Lamar Kelly. Almost all members of the RTC staff reported to one or the other. These two men were appointees of Mr. Casey, who in turn had been appointed by President Bush. They were thoroughly professional and they were retained throughout all of 1993. Each then left at his own initiative to rejoin the FDIC. Retaining the two senior vice presidents whom we inherited is also not consistent with trying to exert political control over the agency. Moreover, these two individuals bad no motivation to show favoritism on Madison Guaranty, and I do not believe that they did so, During my tenure at the RTC, I was also serving as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. In that role, I was deeply involved in policy initiatives ranging from passage of the President's economic plan to cochairing the U.S.-Japan framework negotiations. These responsibilities permitted me limited time for RTC matters. My involvement there typically related to broad public issues, like the long struggle last year to pass the RTC Completion Act. At no time, Mr. Chairman, did I ever ask to be briefed, nor was I briefed, on any investigation or the status or the outlook for any case, not once. My role was to provide general oversight at twice 408 senior staff meetings. These involved 8 to 10 RTC officials, and they were the only RTC employees with whom I ever had any personal contact of any kind. Last fall, Bill Roelle or Jean Hanson or both, advised me because of impending publicity, that the RTC was considering referring the Madison matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, and that the referral could mention the President and First Lady in some capacity. I had never asked to be involved in Madison son-related matters or any other RTC investigation. Indeed, until that time, I had known nothing at 11 about Madison except through the press. And, as I said. I believe they advised me because publicity was imminent. I was also advised that such referral decisions are typically made at the regional office level. I responded by saying that this referral decision should be made in exactly the same fashion as in any other case. If that meant the regional office level, then that's where the decision should be made. There were no further conversations with me on that subject. ultimately learned through the press that the case indeed had been referred to the Justice Department.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:10:50) On February 2, Jean Hanson and I went to the White House. She attended because, as Treasury's senior lawyer, she had been helping me on various RTC legal matters, and the subject matter was inherently legal. She saw nothing wrong with providing this information to the White House. I later learned that she also bad the good judgment to check the ethical issues with Dennis Foreman, Treasury's Chief Ethics Officer, who also saw nothing improper. Mr. Foreman, I might add, is a career appointee who preceded the Clinton Administration. In other words, Mr. Chairman, Treasury's General Counsel and its Senior Ethics Officer both approved this meeting. And as you know, the Office of Government Ethics has also rendered its verdict on that meeting, which is a favorable one. The meeting lasted no more than 20 minutes. Initially, Ms. HanSon and I described the generic procedures which the RTC used in this or any other case facing an expiring statute of limitations. We recited the three alternatives, following talking points which she had prepared. And this Committee, of course, has a copy of those. This was the total information provided which related to the RTC investigation of Madison, We provided no information on the status or outlook for the case. That would have been impossible because we possessed none. The Office of Government Ethics, which took testimony under oath from all participants. said in its report 410 that "nothing suggests that this part of the -meeting involved a disclosure of nonpublic information." Toward the end of the February 2 meeting, I also raised the question of recusal. And let me now address that. Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, the issue of recusal is a false one. Whether I recused my self or not would have had no impact on the investigation, none whatsoever. The facts are that I began thinking about recusal around February 1. And that on February 25, 1 did recuse myself. No matter came to me for decision on any case including Madison in that period. Moreover, prior to recusing myself, I was de facto recused. Deci. sions on cases never came to me at any time during my RTC tenure. And I had specifically reaffirmed to the RTC General Couns el before the February 2 meeting that she would be making all deci- sions related to Madison, not me. Indeed, I had told her that more than once, and with others present, and as you know, she testified before you to that effect. On February 2, when I informed the White House that I was thinking about recusal, I told them that it was irrelevant because the RTC General Counsel would be making all decisions on Madison, not me. The Office of Government Ethics confirms my de facto recusal. It states in its report that "recusal is just another word for nonparticipation " and I had already chosen nonparticipation. Nine days after the February 2 meeting, Congress passed a 2-year extension of the statute of limitations on Madison Guaranty9 days later. That made recusal entirely moot. My term as RTC Chairman was to expire and did expire on March 30. And with such additional time, it was almost certain that the RTC would not be making any Madison decisions by my March 30 termination date. In retrospect, I perhaps should have recused myself right off the bat. Some of this controversy would have been avoided. But before February 2, 1 had been advised that there was no legal or ethical requirement to recuse myself. I later receive two written opinions from ethics officers to that effect. Two written opinions
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:05:35) I do not believe I suggested that the White House be informed of any facts relating to this referral, but if Ms. Hanson did advise the White House of an impending press leak on it, I see nothing improper in that. Nor did the Office of Government Ethics. Mr. Roelle has testified that be advised me of a possible criminal referral as early as March 1993. 1 respect him, but I do not recall it. There have also been questions on press articles on Madison which I may have faxed to Mr. Nussbaum. He has said that he has no recollection of receiving them. I don't recall sending them either, but there would be nothing wrong with sending press articles to anyone. And there isn't a shred of evidence that I conveyed sensitive information, then or at any other time, to the White House. During our meeting at the White House on February 2, we conveyed no information on the facts, merits, or outlook for the case, or the statute of limitations decision. That would have been impossible -- that would have been impossible, because I bad no information on those matters. I never had such information on Madison or any other case and I do not have it today. The only information we provided which related to the case involved a description of the generic and procedural alternatives which face the RTC in any expiring statute of limitations situation, and indeed faced it in Madison. All of that information was in the public domain. It had previously been provided to representatives of the Congress upon request. And it was in the hands of the media. The Washington Times, for example, had already printed a summary of these procedural alternatives. During the months of December and January, there were, at least, 7 meetings or conversations between RTC officials and House and Senate staff, all requested by the latter. Three of these involved Senator D'Amato's staff. All of these centered around the statute of limitations issues and the supplying to Congress of documents related to Madison. Moreover, from December 1993 through February 1994, a series of congressional inquiries regarding the pursuit of civil claims aris- 409 ing from the Madison failure came directly to me. They included a letter on January 11 from 41 Republican Senators and a letter on January 25 from Senator DAmato and a letter from Congressman Leach. These urged the RTC to, in Senator DAmato's words: Take action to voluntarily seek agreements from potential parties to pre-initiated legal action. I can see no reason for further delay on your part. Please provide me with your conclusion immediately. The congressional inquiries directed to me, of course, required a response. Prior to receiving them, I was not familiar with the statute of limitations issues. I am not a lawyer and, for example, had never previously heard of a tolling agreement. To assist in preparing responses to these congressional inquiries, Ellen Kulka, the RTC General Counsel, briefed me on these issues. I learned that the RTC bad to make a decision by February 28. The alternatives were: No. 1, seeking a tolling agreement with the parties against whom a claim might be brought. No. 2, failing that, filing a claim in court, Or No. 3, concluding that no basis existed for pursuing a claim. This information together with the facts relating to the criminal referral was the sum total of information relating to Madison which was known to me. My responses to Members of Congress were very direct. We pledged an impartial process, a thorough review, and "if such claims do exist, the RTC will vigorously pursue all appropriate remedies using standard procedures in such cases which could include seeking agreements to toll the statute of limitations." With the volume of congressional and press inquiries rising, it seemed to me that, first, the White House should have the same information which was being provided to congressional staff and the press; and second, that it was appropriate to advise the White House of events which could affect its function. Those were my only motivations.