Advanced Search
August 1, 1994 - Part 2
(12:10:25) Mr, KATSANOS. If I recall the early bird you're referring to and the E-mail, the E-mail was in October and de September 30, 19939 early bird did not refer to that particular E-mail. It preceded it. Senator KERRY. That's accurate. No, it just referred to the reporters inquiries. That's all I'm saying. Mr. KATSANOS. That's correct. Senator KERRY. Right. That's all I'm trying to establish. It's in the public domain, is my point. I'm not diminishing the fact that the information went. That is of serious concern. I want to make it very clear. There are two parts that I see here. One is of great concern to all of us on the Committee, and that is what Mr. Altman and Ms. Hanson did with information and what the impact was on you. I clearly want to pursue that line of questioning. But, before I do, Senator Faircloth had an exchange with you suggesting that this is the first time ever that information has gone to the White House. Let me ask you, Mr. Roelle, while you were Vice President at the RTC in 1992 and 1993, was there any other criminal referral besides the Madison that you were told about? Mr. ROELLE. In 1992? Senator KERRY, Correct. Mr. ROELLE. Besides Madison? Senator KERRY. That's correct. Mr. RoELLE. No. 31 Senator KERRY. So this is the only referral that you were informed of in your capacity as Vice President. Correct? Mr. ROELLE. In 1992, yes, Senator KERRY. Correct. And there are hundreds of criminal referrals sent by the RTC to the Department of Justice, are there not? Mr. ROELLE. That's correct, sir. Senator KERRY, But only this one was singled out and told to you. Correct? Mr. ROELLE. Yes, sir. Senator FERRY. And this one happened to involve the Clintons in some respect, which we're not going into in great detail. Correct? Mr. ROELLE. Yes, sir. Senator KERRY. That happened while President Bush was still in office. Isn't that accurate? Mr. ROELLE. That's right. Senator KERRY. In fact, it was during the campaign, was it not? Mr. ROELLE. Yes, sir. Senator KERRY. So, even during the Bush Administration, this case was treated differently from other cases, was it not? Mr. ROELLE. Yes, sir. Senator KERRY. With respect to that, when did you first learn there was a criminal referral pertaining to Madison Guaranty at the RTC? Mr. ROELLE. I believe it was in September 1992. Senator KERRY. About 6 weeks before the election. Correct? Mr. ROELLE. Approximately, yes, sir. Senator KERRY. Who told you about this referral? Mr. ROELLE. Mr. Dudeny. Senator KERRY. Why did he tell you? Mr. ROELLE. He came to me and said, 'This is a criminal referral we ire processing and I think you should know about it because it mentions the President, or a person that's running for the Presidency." Senator KERRY. It mentions a Presidential candidate? Mr. ROELLE. Right, Presidential candidate. Senator KERRY. It does not mention the President. Correct? Mr. ROELLE. That's correct. Senator KERRY. Did you inform anybody else? Mr. RoELLE. I did. Senator KERRY, You informed Mr. Albert Casey. Correct? Mr. ROELLE. That's correct. Senator KERRY. Who is Mr. Albert Casey? Mr. RoELLE. He was the CEO of the RTC. Senator KERRY. He was the CEO of the RTC under President Bush? Mr. ROELLE. That's correct. Senator KERRY. Did Albert Casey tell you that he would tell Someone about the criminal referral? Mr. RoELLE. He said that lie felt he needed to tell the oversight board. Senator KERRY. Who sits on the oversight board? Mt. ROELLE. The Secretary of the Treasury is the Chairman. Senator KERRY. That would have been Mr, Nick Brady. Correct? 32 Mr. ROELLE. That's correct. Senator KERRY. And who else? Mr. ROELLE. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. The Chairman of the FDIC. Senator KERRY. Did President Bush's Counsel, C. Boyden Gray, sit on the board? Mr. ROELLE. No, sir. Senator KERRY. So there would have been no reason for him to have learned it by virtue of the referral of Albert Casey. Correct? Mr. ROELLE. No, sir. Senator KERRY. But did you learn later that C. Boyden Gray had learned something about the criminal referral? Mr. RoELLE. Yes. Senator KERRY. Would you describe what you learned? Mr. ROELLE, Yes, sir. I don't know when it was in relation to when I briefed Mr. Casey, but I was later told by Mr. Casey that he had had a phone call from the White House asking about the criminal referral. I indicated to Mr. Casey that it would be inappropriate to discuss it with the White House. Mr. Casey said, "OK I'll tell him that." We had a fairly long discussion about it. I told him that I thought the appropriate answer would be it is now in the hands of the Justice Department and it's not something that can be discussed. As far as I know, Mr. Casey said he would express that view and I was told that he did express that view. Senator KERRY. Did it disturb you that C. Boyden Gray, at the White House, had somehow learned of the criminal referral? Mr. ROELLE. Yes, sir. Senator KERRY. So your answer to Senator Faircloth was not, in fact, purely accurate. This is not the first time the White House has learned about it, is it? Mr. ROELLE. No. I think it was accurate, sir. He asked me, " Is this the first time that the RTC had briefed the White House?" And I said ' "To my knowledge, it is the first time. We did not brief the White House. )) Senator KERRY. But you had, in your discussion with Mr. Gray, you discussed Mr. ROELLE. I did not discuss anything with Mr. Gray. Senator KERRY, I understand. But the discussion that took place was a discussion with respect to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of their learning more. Correct? Mr. ROELLE. Absolutely.
Capitol Journal - Air Safety
(01:00:00) WETA logo, PBS funding credits (01:00:13) Opens to two unidentified, different men in suits making statements about air safety and deregulation - shots of them appear in window under which is a Capital Journal banner, in window, from tv studio, Capitol Journal host HODDING CARTER introduces show (01:00:41) Capitol Journal title credit and animation (01:00:48) Carter summarizes why air safety a current issue, shot of air traffic control tower, shots of planes moving on runways, shot of plane on a descent going by the Washington Monument, shot of plane taking off from runway with Capitol Building in background, meeting of the House Aviation Sub-Committee, Senate Aviation hearing (01:03:32) Shot of airport ticket line, on screen statistics of growth of airline industry and proposed government cuts to F.A.A., interview with DONALD ENGEN head of the F.A.A. who says air travel safety has never been better, interview with HOWARD JOHANNSSON President of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists who talks about proposed FAA cuts (01:06:11) Various shots of air traffic control room in Leesburg, VA - controllers busy at work in front of computers and radar screens, interviews with various controllers about the future of air traffic control, return to interviews with Engen and Johannsson (01:09:49) Back in studio Carter segues to earlier interview in Congressional office with Senators JOHN GLENN and WARREN RUDMAN about the current state of air safety and FAA funding and organization (01:19:10) Back in studio Carter introduces a panel of three journalists: TOM MCCARTHY of the Dallas Times, PENNY PAGANO of the Los Angeles Times, STEVEN ROBERTS of the New York Times talk about the current state of air safety and the future of the FAA (01:27:00) Carter thanks guests and closes out show, credits roll (01:27:30) PBS funding credits
LAWMAKERS - "4th District Candidates"
U.S. Representative Margaret Heckler (R-MA): "When women splinter and dissipate what we have, the strength that we have, we are losing power. We only have 22 women, we have 4% of Congress, out of a population which women comprise 51.3%. Diminishing the 4% is not advancing women's causes. Diminishing the loss of a woman who has been there for 8 terms does not advance the representation of women. There's no way that Barney Frank can do things that I've done for women for all these years and be as effective on these issues as I have been." Janet Wu (VO) adds that Congresswoman Heckler resents the National Organization for Women (NOW) for defecting to Barney Frank. Heckler, sitting next to Presidential aide Elizabeth Dole, says, "It's particularly hard to understand because we are now in need of supporter and a Republican to get up and speak in Republican councils. Well, there are very few who would take the positions I would take, but I was always the one to do it. When they needed a Republican to lead the march, I was the one to do it. When they needed a Republican to call the governor's of other states, and legislators of other states, I called them. I was always there. Not because of NOW. Because of the issue. Because I care about women's rights. I care deeply, and I will never stop fighting for them." Wu (VO) says Congressman Frank believes none of those reasons qualify her for the women's vote. U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) speaking in debate setting, arguing that when U.S. President Ronald Reagan fired the executive director of the advisory committee on women's equality and replaced her with an aide to Phyllis Schlafly, Frank and allies took to House floor to protest, but Heckler did not. Wu (VO) adds that Congressman Frank has also called on other Congresswomen to testify on his behalf.
LAWMAKERS - LM 099 - "Taxes"
Program host Paul Duke introduces taxes segment with guest U.S. Representative James Shannon (D-MA). Duke discusses House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s proposal to put a $700 limit on the year’s final installment of Reagan’s income tax cut. O’Neill believes the reductions greatly benefit the rich. Duke says the Democratic-controlled Ways and Means Committee approved the ceiling by an 18 to 15 vote, with most Democrats voting "yes" and all Republicans voting "no." Duke asks Rep. Shannon if the Democrats are risking a political backlash by pushing for a tax increase when economic recovery is getting underway. Shannon says it can always be bad politics to push for tax increase, but once in a while tax increases are needed. Shannon says the alternative to having a tax bill now is more budget deficits and the risk we lose economic recovery, with higher unemployment and higher interest rates. Shannon says it would be irresponsible not to move now. Duke asks if voters will see it differently, quoting Representative Jack Kemp that “the Democrats will be charged with taking the goodies away from the people." Shannon says most people know that Kemp was part of the disastrous 1981 Reagan tax cuts, adding that most taxpayers did not see a real tax reduction. Shannon says voters understand taxes must be raised one way or another, that voters would rather see Democrats raise taxes fairly. Shannon discusses President Reagan’s proposed tax raises on energy and surtaxes. Shannon says we need to pick up equity in our tax system now. Linda Wertheimer of National Public Radio asks if equity was what Treasury Secretary Donald Regan was talking about when he met with Congress, that Secretary Regan said a $700 cap would be unfair to the middle class. Shannon says Regan won’t be able to convince anyone that the $700 cap will hurt the middle class because it doesn’t.
U.S. Hispanic Caucus
Adult Hispanic man speaking: "One thing, very quickly, I'd like to thank the groups that have really put two years of work into this effort: the American Civil Liberties Union, the World Church Services, the American G.I. Forum, the American Consulate La Raza, the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and many, many local groups around the country. But, perhaps the greatest tribute is to the Hispanic Caucus, who rightfully took the gauntlet and ran with it, and put the pressure where it had to be put, and really sensitized the Speaker of the House within a very short two week period; to understand the very serious repercussions, not only to Hispanics, primarily to Hispanics, but not only to Hispanics. The tremendous repercussions that this bill would have had on Hispanics in this country, and more importantly to the country as a whole. The passage of such bad legislation is an insult to the integrity of this Congress. It would have been an insult to the fairness of American society as it is known across the world. And it is our hope, as Congressman Richardson and all others have indicated today, that the true test of whether we actually respond to the challenge is if in fact we can develop a legislative piece that is acceptable to all people as best, and under the circumstances. In closing, it is our hope that the President of this country will not attempt to follow through on the very bad advice that he has continually received on this issue from the Attorney General of the United States. It is truly unfortunate that the Attorney General has given such very poor, substantive and political advice to this President on this issue, and we hope that he will not make it a partisan issue and continue to insist passage of this bill or reconsideration."
Capitol Journal
WETA "CAPITOL JOURNAL" IN 16.37.45-Panel Discussion of Partisanship and Parties in Congress; part of symposium on the history and evolution of Congress in honor of the 200th anniversary of the Constitution. Features Rep. TOM FOLEY, Rep. ROBERT MICHEL, former Rep. BARBER CONABLE. Tom Foley discusses reforms in party leadership, making the Congress more democratic and taking power out of the hands of a small leadership clique, but making the Speaker stronger. Now new members are more able to get positions of influence in committees. Foley says the public no longer wants hierarchical power structures in Congress. 16.42.04-moderator introduces former Rep. BARBER CONABLE, who is about to take over as president of the World Bank. Conable discusses leadership in Congress, says there is no formula, but leaders must have patience and organization. Must be articulate and pragmatic. A leader needs to be willing to take the heat for decisions and explain them publicly. Leaders need to adapt to the times, discusses the different styles of past leaders in the Ways and Means Committee as the role of parties has declined and Congress has come to include more diverse agendas. 16.53.42-moderator introduces former DNC chairman John White. Says that party leaders have always felt that their parties were undisciplined and intractable, yet on major issues, party votes still seem to come through. Discusses continuities in the composition and operation of Congress. The main difference is that Congress has to deal with many more issues and the role of money and TV in getting elected. 17.02.25-moderator introduces congressional scholar Norm Ornstein. Ornstein says that Congressional leaders in the past were not as all-powerful as is believed. Discusses past leadership and party discipline, contrasts to current. If Congress sometimes seems fractious and indecisive, it may be because the public is deeply divided and uncertain on the important issues. Suggests that it's a good thing to have majorities in House change hands periodically so that both parties are familiar with the obligations of being the minority and the majority party.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator MONTOYA. With respect to your statements on your previous testimony that you were under the impression that the President knew of the clemency offer, would you please refresh my memory as to the actual conversations that led you into this belief. Mr. McCORD. Yes sir. The information and knowledge that led me to believe that stemmed from conversations with Mr. Liddy, Gordon Liddy in January and February of 1972, in which he told me about the meetings with the Attorney General in the Attorney Generals offices with Mr. Dean present which the operation was deliberated he stated at length, that the pros and cons of the operation were discussed by those present. Presumably meaning the advantages and disadvantages of them, what appeared to be the deliberate consideration, the careful consideration given to the operation by the attorney general. I believe I stated that there was a 30 day delay, which to me seemed quite significant. I believe I stated that the Attorney General was in my opinion a very decisive man. Senator MONTOYA. Mr. McCord, I don't know whether you understood my question ... (older man court reporter recording testimony, Senator Montoya seated at committee table behind him) Mr. McCORD. Alright sir. Senator MONTOYA. But, we're going back to January of 1972 and relating what transpired there. My question was, what led you to believe that the offer of clemency had the endorsement or the approval of the President? Mr. McCORD. I'm sorry sir I misunderstood the question. The statements from Mr. Caulfield to me. Senator MONTOYA. Would you relate those statements again. Mr. McCORD. Yes sir. Mr. Caulfield stated that he was carrying the message of executive clemency to me ... Senator MONTOYA. Did he state so specifically? Mr. McCORD. Yes sir. "From the very highest levels of the White House" these were his exact words. He stated that the President of the United States was in Key Biscayne, Florida that weekend, had been told of the forthcoming meeting with me .... (Testimony Ends Abruptly)
Summer of Judgment Pt 2 of 2
MS Rep. Charles Wiggins: "The question is not whether the creation of the Plumbers was justified ... the issue rather is whether or not the activities of that unit once created constitute an impeachable offense." TLS/MSs Rep. WILLIAM COHEN (R-DE): "Mr. Colson told us that on several occasions the President urged Colson to disseminate information about Ellsberg & his attorney." MSs Rep. WILEY MAYNE (R-IA) defending Nixon: "The President felt on the advice of his closest foreign policy & national defense advisors that he had to act to protect the nat'l security to stop these leaks. In my judgment he acted unwisely in setting up this special investigative unit headed by a brilliant young man who had no investigative experience. But is the President to be impeached b/c he made an error in judgment in his decision to act quickly & necessarily to protect the national defense?" MS Rep. JEROME WALDIE (D-CA): "For the President's defenders to suggest that it was an extraordinary departure from the institutions of law enforcement but warranted b/c of the threat of national security, the burden is clearly on them to establish that the activities of the Plumbers were designed to protect the national security." Panning TLS House Judiciary voting to dismiss Wiggins' motion to drop the Abuse of Power charge. MS Rep. DON EDWARDS (D-CA): "No proposition could be more profoundly subversive of the Constitution than the notion that any public official posseses any kind of inherent power to set the Constitution aside whenever he thinks the public interest warrants it. It is the very definiton of dictatorship. Dictatorship is simply a system in which one man is empowered to do whatever he deems needful for the whole community." MS Rep. JAMES MANN (D-SC): "This Committee has spent 10 weeks reviewing the evidence. It's not fair to you to pull the tidbits out."
Capitol Journal - Abortion
12.44 Hodding Carter. Now let me make sure of this though, you say that s where we are implementing it. On the domestic front has the legislation actually passed that implements that in the various planning clinics? Or are we where? Patricia Schroeder (D - Colorado). The legislation passed dealing with it internationally. So International Planned Parenthood can do it. We now have moves to do it internally domestically for low income families. Hodding Carter. And what s the status of that move? Chris Smith (R - New Jersey). It s pending. The appropriations committee and the full House have not taken it up yet. But, I think many I have found in talking to other members, most of them were not aware of that Planned Parenthood for instance runs the largest chain of abortion mills in the country, some 44 clinics. They performed in 1984 some 87,000 abortions. Very often they emphasize other aspects of their services, which most members including myself don t disagree with. Hodding Carter. Let me interrupt, sorry. Chris Smith (R - New Jersey). But we are trying to put a wall of separation between the termination of a life and prevention. Prevention, I don t think there is any problem with members on the Hill. It s the termination. Hodding Carter. Do you agree with that? Do you agree with that description? Patricia Schroeder (D - Colorado). I don t agree with that at all. I find it stunning that they make those arguments because it always seemed to me, first of all, there s an underlying message in what he s saying. And that message is that women really like abortions. I know of no woman, no woman who would use that as birth control. I think the birth control and family planning clinics are preventing abortions because they are giving people any other option. They are trying to show people how you can prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). The hearing will come back to order. To explain to the witnesses what we are doing, is trying to figure out the remainder of the schedule. I emphasize again that Senator Thurmond and I are under strict time constraints placed on us, understandably, by the entirety of the Senate, the leadership in the Senate and the remainder of the Senate, to resolve this entire matter in time for all of our colleagues to be able to consider all the testimony here and make a judgment. As I have indicated at the outset, were this a trial, which is not, all of you who are sitting as the panel members here know that there would be a legitimate reason for this trial to go on for another week or more. We do not have that luxury. The nominee insists on a resolution of it. The White House insists on a resolution of it. And the Senate insists on a resolution of it. So what we are attempting to do is work out not only a time when we are going to vote on this on the Senate floor, which is done six o'clock Tuesday night, but an agreement on an absolute end time when these hearings will end. And I assure this panel, you will not have to be here till the end. We are about to do that with you all now, and we will probably recess very briefly after this panel is completed to discuss the final, the final witness list and the time frame within which each witness or panel will be coming before the Committee. I thank the panel and I thank everyone in this room for their indulgence, and I hope they understand. But based upon the knowledge of the arcane processes of the Senate I am sure no one will understand. But nonetheless, that is where we are. Now, where were we in questioning? Who was next?
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Carlton Stewart. Good evening, Senators, Senator Thurmond - I see that Senator Biden's seat is empty - and other distinguished members of the committee. My name is Carleton Stewart. I am a graduate of Holy Cross College and the University of Georgia Law School. I was formerly house counsel to Shell Oil Company, in Houston, Texas, and Delta Airlines, in Atlanta, Georgia, respectively. Additionally, I was a senior trial attorney with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in Atlanta, Georgia, and later a special assistant to Judge Clarence Thomas, in Washington. Subsequently, I was as partner in the law firm of Arrington & Hallowell, in Atlanta, Georgia, and I am currently a principal in the Stewart firm in Atlanta, Georgia. As aforestated, I was a special assistant to Judge Clarence Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during much of the time that Anita Hill was employed there. At no time, did I hear any complaints from Ms. Hill concerning sexual harassment. At no time during my tenure at EEOC, did I observe or hear anything relative to sexual harassment by Judge Clarence Thomas. In August of 1991, I ran into Ms. Anita Hill at the American Bar Association Convention, in Atlanta, Georgia, whereupon she stated, in the presence of Stanley Grayson, how great Clarence's nomination was and how much he deserved it. We went on to discuss Judge Clarence Thomas at our tenure at EEOC for an additional 30 or so minutes. There was no mention of sexual harassment nor anything negative about Judge Thomas stated during that time. Senator Strom Thurmond (R South Carolina). Would you pull the microphone closer to you, so that people in the back can hear you? Carlton Stewart. Okay. I will boom for you. I have known Judge Clarence Thomas for more than 30 years, and I find the allegations by Ms. Hill not only ludicrous, but totally inconsistent and inapposite to his principles and his personality. I will shorten this, so that we can get on with this. Thank you.
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(11:55:28) The CHAIRMAN. Senator Boxer, I might just make one comment before yielding to Senator Domenici, and that is, as you spoke about Mr. Foster and the tragedy of his death and the impact upon his family, I was so struck, as I m sure you were in reading of the report of Mr. Fiske, that Mr. Foster in days just before his death did try to get help. He called professionals who might have been able to counsel him in dealing with this depression problem that be obviously bad. And one of the great ironies is that he called at a time when the professional was not there. So the evidence we have was that although be tried on two occasions to reach for help, it's just fate that be was not able to get the help at that moment and then sadly didn't try it again. Senator BOXER. And he also feared that if he did make this contact, he could lose his clearance. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. And that is a matter of the record and we'll get into that at some point. Senator Domenici. Senator MACK. If I could, Mr. Chairman, since you're having dialog back and forth on these different issues and questions. I feet compelled to make a response here that there's an implication that at some point there are going to be some questions asked about Foster's death, and somehow that's going to be terrible for us to do that on this side. But I would just remind everyone that we are here because, frankly, of the way the whole situation was handled. There have been serious questions raised so I think people ought to be sensitive to that. The CHAIRMAN. Let me say, Senator Mack, and I don't want to digress at this point, but that certainly wasn't the implication or intention of my remark. Senator Domenici. (11:57:17) OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE DOMENICI Senator DOMENICI. I hope it wasn't the implication of anyone's remarks because I don't think that's the intention on this side, and I think we'll just let it evolve with reference to his death. I don't think anyone on our side is challenging whether or not it was a suicide. So perhaps we can get rid of that rather quickly. 33 But, Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, I guess as I look around-even though I'm wayover on this side of the table on the end-I think I've been in the Senate longer than anyone here and I have learned in that period of time, fellow Senators, not to rush to Judgement. And I don't do that very often. In fact, I did not do that in this case. But having considered the facts gathered in advance of these bearings, I have to admit that I'm more than a little distressed about the actions of a number of Administration officials in this matter. Mr. Chairman, much has been said about the Fiske investigation. I believe it is probable that we have more evidence today about Whitewater as it relates to these bearings than Mr. Fiske bad in his investigation, I believe we've bad depositions of more people. Just as much evidence has been gathered and so I believe we now what we're talking about. On this side, we're going to talk about facts. We have many facts. I'm not sure the House had facts, but we've had an opportunity because of this Committee's leadership and the Senate which gives a fair opportunity to both sides. We have plenty of facts to back tip what we're doing. But this story is regrettably an all too familiar part of history in this city because the contacts between the White House and the Treasury Department regarding the RTC investigation into Madison reveal yet another opportunity, another instance in which political considerations took precedence over all else, and I am firmly convinced about that. And that's not a small matter because these actions have seriously jeopardized the RTC's independence. Let me discuss just a couple of items-tbere are many more-but a couple that trouble me deeply. First, I want to focus on something Senator D'Amato raised in his opening remarks. Exactly what did the President's closest advisors at the White House know about the RTCs investigation of Whitewater and Madison Guaranty and bow did this knowledge potentially compromise the RTC's ability to complete this investigation? And I believe we are going to find, before we are finished, that it did that mightily. Confidentiality and secrecy are critical to a successful criminal investigation. Everyone knows that. Otherwise, evidence can be destroyed, testimony' tailored, investigative techniques limited, and the advantage of surprise lost. Yet, the Madison Guaranty investigation's confidentiality was repeatedly violated.
August 2, 1994 - Part 7
(19:00:58) Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir, I would. Senator SHELBY. Did you not prepare for this oversight hearing Senator SHELBY. How much time did you spend in your best judgment, if you recall anything, on preparation for that February hearing? Mr. ALTMAN. Ten or 12 hours. Senator SHELBY. Now, did you think you were fairly well prepared when you came before the Banking Committee? Mr. ALTMAN. One is never as prepared as one would like to be but reasonably so. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Altman, you're a graduate of Georgetown University undergraduate and MBA from the University of Chicago is that right? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. Two good schools. You're an investment banker by profession, or were? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator SHE SHELBY. You were a partner with one or two of the large investment houses that deal with investment banking in the United States Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. in February? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir, I did. Senator SHELBY. Who worked with you? I know a number of your staff, but besides Ms. Hanson. Mr. ALTMAN. Who attended? Senator SHELBY. Yes, who helped prepare you? We have staff who help prepare us sometimes and I understand that. Mr. ALTMAN. There were about 10 or 15 members in RTC Treasury staff who worked with me on the preparation of the testimony on the Q's and A's before February 24. Senator SHELBY. Do you, in this preparation, go over with different staffers questions that might be-that you might anticipate that some of us here on the Banking Committee might ask you Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. -Pertaining to RTC or something related directly or indirectly to it? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. 448 Senator SHELBY. -and in the world. Do you believe that when someone asks you a straight question, that you should give them a straight answer? Or should you try to dodge it or duck it? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, throughout the career that I've been privileged to have, both public and private, I have always tried to an. swer forthrightly. I think if you went out and checked with people who know me, they might say various things about me and my failings but they would not say that I was not a forthright person. Senator SHELBY. We've been checking and this is part of the hearing today. A lot of us are concerned about some of your answers to some questions. Were you trying to avoid the question? Were you hoping that the precise question was not asked, was not asked where you could not squeeze out of it in some way, or duck it in some way, or evade it in some way? Mr. ALTMAN. No, Senator, I wasn't. Senator SHELBY. Was that part of your preparation for the hearin g? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I prepared for those hearings the way I've always tried to prepare which was to put myself in a position to know as much as I can about the subject and answer the questions as forthrightly as I can. Senator SHELBY. Do you know Mr. Josh Steiner? Mr. ALTMAN. Sure. Senator SHELBY. Do you work with him? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. Do you work closely with him? Mr. ALTMAN. Less so these days because he's Chief of Staff, but he was my special assistant through last fall, and we worked very closely. Senator SHELBY. Worked with him every day, did you not, for a while? Mr. ALTMAN. At that period, yes, not now. Senator SHELBY. You're familiar with his diaries and I'm sure you've read them, have you not? Mr. ALTMAN. I've never been given a full copy of the diary, no. I've just have the page The CHAIRMAN. That's all we have, too. Senator SHELBY. Talking about recusal, which you don't think is important, but a lot of us do think that it is important and the method Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I didn't say it was important. Senator SHELBY. What did you say about it? Mr. ALTMAN. I said it bad nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison Guaranty. Senator SHELBY. You said it didn't matter? Mr. ALTMAN. I said it had nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison Guaranty. Senator SHELBY. Not whether it didn't matter, it was immaterial to the investigation? Mr. ALTMAN. It would have had no bearing under any circumstances on the RTC investigation of Madison. Senator SHELBY. I want to read you something from the record and it may have already been touched on, but from Josh Steiner's diary and this has to To with your -meeting at the White House. 449 "At a fateful White House meeting with Nussbaum, Ickes, and Williams, however, the White House staff told Roger Altman that it was unacceptable"-that is your recusal. "Roger Altman had gone to brief them on the impending statute of limitations deadline and also to tell them of his recusal decision. They reacted"-they reacted "very negatively to the recusal and Roger Altman backed down the next ay and agreed to a de
August 3, 1994 - Part 2
(11:45:12) Senator KERRY. I have a couple of questions that are tied into that line of questioning. I hope you understand. Secretary BENTSEN. I know what you are reaching for. Senator KERRY. I am just trying to understand how the lawyer for the Department would take. Clearly a reference in a criminal referral in any capacity is an unusual occurrence. Is that not fair to say? Secretary BENTSEN. Yes, I would certainly think so. Senator KERRY. Would you not want to be informed if your Department is being notified to this effect? In fact, the evidence says that according to Mr. Roelle, that she was instructed to call, among other people, you or your office to inform you. Secretary BENTSEN. I had worked very hard to build a wall around myself insofar as any case specific matter in the Resolution Trust, I did that because I did not want, in any way, to have violated the law. And that worked. Senator KERRY. I am not suggesting that you had any role in this. I know you did not. There is nothing that suggests you did. I understand that. All I am trying to say is, Mr. Secretary, the notion that if I am lawyer to somebody and information comes to me of the import of this kind of information, the notion that I would take it upon myself to just jump over to the White House, talk to the Counsel of the President of the United States and say to him, hey, by the way, is very hard for me to accept. Secretary BENTSEN. Let me tell you, Senator, you are more awe inspired than I am by those folks over there. Senator KERRY. I beg your pardon? I could not hear Secretary BENTSEN. You are more awe inspired than I am by those folks over there. Those folks are over there daily. Senator KERRY. That may well be. We do not get down there as often as you do. Secretary BENTSEN. Those folks were over there daily. Senator KERRY. This is what I want to understand. I am not arguing with you about it. You are saying to me that Ms. Hanson might have gone over there absolutely on her own on a daily basis with this kind of information? Secretary BENTSEN. Well she was over there often. No, not daily on that kind of information, but they were over there very often, and developed a working relationship there. Senator KERRY. But she was over there at the time on Waco, correct? Secretary BENTSEN. That is what I found out this morning. 36 Senator KERRY. Clearly, we know she was over there. Would she impart that kind of information without having first told you or Mr. Altman? Secretary BENTSEN. She certainly would without telling-would have done it, and could have done it without telling me, certainly, because once again, I was very much opposed to anything that got me in case specific matters in the Resolution Trust because the Congress has made it clear that I was not supposed to be in the oversight. Senator KERRY. Absolutely, I agree with that. And then the question would be whether or not, in your judgment, it would have been appropriate for her to go to the White House without having first checked with Mr. Altman? Secretary BENTSEN. I do not think she is precluded from that. Senator KERRY. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bennett, OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR BENNETT Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Mr. Secretary. Secretary BENTSEN. Thank you, Senator. Senator BENNETT. I will just make a quick comment. I may be the only Member of this Committee who has served in an Administration, and yes, we were at the White House on a regular basis and yes, at my level, and it was functioning at an Assistant Secretary level. I would clearly not have talked to the Counsel of the President without the Under Secretary, as he was then designated, telling me it was OK. I would have talked to my normal contacts, but the Counsel of the President to an Assistant Secretary, which is the level at which she operates, is kind of a forbidding figure and she testified, very specifically, I do not know Bernie Nussbaum, and I would not presume to call Bernie Nussbaum unless somebody told me. So that has been her testimony, and I happen to resonate with that. Now Mr. Secretary, in your testimony, you asked us for recommendations that we might think appropriate, and I have one for you. I would suggest that you send the name of Jack Ryan to this Committee for confirmation immediately. We have had testimony here that he will now preside over the RTC until its dissolution.
August 3, 1994 - Part 6
(17:46:04) He was trying to have it both ways. He was trying to be in a position where he could say to Ms. Kulka, to the people in the RTC, to whatever ethics officers that would talk to him, look, I'm going 123 to have nothing to do with this, I've made my decision to turn the whole thing over to Kulka and he could say to the White House, that was clearly in a position of preferring him as the decisionmaker, hey, I have not recused myself, I'm still in the position, you don't need to worry. Now the whole matter became moot because events overtook it. But let us not pay so much attention to the fact that events overtook it that it did happen in this fashion at a time when no one was sure that events were going to overtake it. No one was sure that the Congress was going to extend the statute of limitations. No one was sure that Mr. Altman was in fact not going to be called upon to make a decision. So he had himself set up with the thing looking both ways, And that to me is the problem with the "de facto recusal." It got him into a political pickle, it got him into this kind of controversy, it got him before this Committee for however many hours it was, It created a disaster in his career and I think it is a very illustrative lesson that we will all learn. And when there comes a time when your gut tells you, regardless of what the specifics and technicalities of the law might be, when your gut tells you I better get out of this, you are far better off to follow your gut and stick with it and do not change it and do not say, well, I'll try to be de facto this way and de jure another way. You take your position and you stand with it and that's why Mr. Altman is in so much trouble and that's why this Committee is so exercised about it. Senator D'AMATO, I'd just like to make this point and I thank my friend for yielding. If you put it in writing that is the recusal and you can't take it back, and then you're not even in a position to hear anything or to discuss anything. But if you operated under the guise of a de facto, well, then notwithstanding I'm not going to make a final judgment is there and if there's a problem he can insert himself. And that's my observation and I think it kind of dovetails with Senator Bennett and I thank the Senator for yielding, Mr. KLEIN. Senator Bennett, can I respond to your comment, please? Senator BENNETT, Surely. Mr. KLEIN. I think there are two points you make and I think You want to be clear and we all want to be clear about it. One is a point that I think Mr. Cutler has already spoken to. I think it is well recognized at the White House that it would have been far Preferable if the meeting had not occurred on February 2nd, for some of the reasons in terms that you have laid out here. Mr. Eggleston was there. I was not. I would rely on his account to that meeting. Nevertheless that seems to me to be something Mr. Cutler, has already said. The second point you said, with respect, sir, I do not entirely agree with. I think the White House shouldn't be involved, but the issue of when a person recuses, you may be right that people recuse because in their gut they think they can't do the job. But People may recuse because of political pressure, because it is the easy thing to do. And I, at least, think that is inappropriate, I have practiced before many judges that I have known socially, gone to law school with and 1 consider friends, and I have never had a moment's doubt that they could decide fairly. And I find it interesting, 124 frankly, that Republicans all of a sudden see recusal as a universal panacea when for years they have been the party that opposed the Independent Counsel Law precisely on the ground that the Attorney General of the United States should be held accountable to make the tough calls. And I think we let people avoid the hard decisions. Now I do believe, and I don't want to leave any doubt that that decision belonged to Mr. Altman, should have been made by him and him alone, but I think it is a bad message to send to people that you cannot be fair and impartial and call them as you see them because you know somebody or you are friends with somebody. I strongly disagree with that suggestion, sir.
August 3, 1994 - Part 8
(19:35:28) We had a discussion going back and forth earlier when I was here between one of our Members and Mr. Eggleston about the fact that everybody knew that Mr. Altman was in phantom recusal. Everybody knew that he was going to recuse himself if anything happened. Everybody knew that these civil servants below him were the kind of people that weren't going to let him get away with any politic's or hanky-panky. Everybody knew that, but the problem is whatever kind of logic you try to impose on top of this-and I think the natural inclination of the human mind is to try to impose logic-the bottom line is the facts show clearly and convincingly that tremendous exertions of effort were undertaken to prevent this Committee, and perhaps the world, from knowing that the recusal issue was being discussed, Mr. Ickes asked Ms. Hanson, "how many people were told you were discussing it? It's good that it's a limited number. We don't want people to know about it." We have diaries written from the heart that Mr. Altman was told that it was unacceptable to recuse himself. He was under intense Pressure, we re told. The problem is, if it didn't matter, what was all this about? I know you can't answer that question, but I'll just give my opinion It is clear to any objective observer that Mr. -Altman desperately did not want this to be known and was willing to risk being in a position where he could be accused of being less than honest-if it were 12:00 last night I would have said "lying"-to a of Congress, knowing that that is a violation of law. 150 And I think that any reasonable person has to give that heavy weight in this discussion. This whole idea of phantom recusal--this whole idea of, well, he really recused himself but he didn't want to tell anybody about it. He didn't want them to know that he had recused himself. I know we can say those things. I know it's convenient to talk about them, and I know this is the Congress and there's a different standard of language we have here than in the real world, but nobody believes that. Mr. KLEIN. Senator Gramm, can I respond to that? Senator GRAMM. Yes, sir. Mr. KLEIN. I can't put myself in Mr. Altman's mind, but I think I can say something for me and my colleagues here, and that is as far as the White House was concerned, I think the evidence is quite strong that we were not trying to hide this fact of recusal, and what I mean by that is, Mr. Eggleston has testified, and there's no dispute about it, he called the day before the hearing with respect to the recusal. Senator GRAMM. Mr. Klein, I don't in any way dispute that. The person who tried to hide this, desperately tried to hide it, was Mr, Altman. He went to incredible lengths to hide it and, in fact, produced a situation where now there is clear and convincing evidence that he knowingly in that March letter withheld very important information. And while I'm on that subject, let me say that we've had many people testify before this Committee, but if I were in the White House, you're exactly the kind of person I would want to be a counsel for me. I appreciate the direct way you answer questions. I appreciate the way you get to the bottom line. And my guess is, had Mr, Altman had people like you working directly for him or had he been a person like you, we wouldn't even be here. Now, I want to go back to you, Mr. Eggleston, to discuss this meeting on February 3rd, a meeting we know almost nothing about. You were there. We know, at least by sworn testimony, that Maggie Williams was the person that Roger Altman called, and we' have her recollection of the call: "Well, Roger called, and he said. to me, I decided not to recuse. And he said, I want to tell some people in the White House that." I guess he thought it was going to be glorious news. And then she says-which is very interesting to me "I remember thinking to myself, so tell him. Big deal." She didn't literally say "big deal." But people out on the street would have said "big deal." This is a sworn statement. You don't say "big deal" in a sworn statement. And then he said that he's on his way to his meeting and get some people together, because I want to come over and tell them. Was the tenor of that meeting that Mr. Altman came in and said, I have glorious news, I've decided not to recuse myself.?
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:50:09) So I think that was wrong. Now, having said all that, I want to bring up the diary. The diary, in my view, is being held up by, many here as the gospel. I have said from day one I believe the diary is an exaggeration, and I believe-and I think it was interesting when the Chairman opened up that if there was intense pressure, it was inside Mr. Altman. The intense pressure wasn't brought by the people in the room. As far as I can tell, we're grownups. Mr. Altman is a grownup. He's been around the block a few times, as my mother would say. She knew the story. He had been in politics. This is not a child, a public servant who is struggling. So I don't believe that you could intimidate him and I don't believe that you did. I don't think that you brought intense pressure , and I think it is very important that I say that because I don't want the American people to believe that the White House brought intense pressure. Maggie Williams said-when was that, today, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator BOXER. Or yesterday. Maggie Williams said many hours ago Senator BRYAN. Fifteen hours ago. Senator BOXER. Fifteen hours ago when she expressed to Roger Altman, I don't understand why you have to do that. You're not taking the case anyway. You looked at her and rather critically said, and I'm paraphrasing, Maggie, if that's what you call her Mr. NUSSBAUM. I call her Maggie. Senator BOXER. It's up to Roger And Mr. Ickes, who couldn't remember exactly what he said, other people remember him saying, well, Roger if you're going to do it, do it sooner rather than later. Now, I think it's important to ask you one more time because you now know how I feel. I don't think there is a point in arguing it. We just see it differently. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Correct, Senator. Senator BOXER. SO we'll respect each other for that. But I think it's important that you please-this is very important for this White House-tell me if you think the Steiner diary is an exag geration when he says the White House brought intense pressure on Roger Altman on the issue of recusal? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I think the Steiner diary is an exaggeration when it says that we brought intense pressure on Roger Altman. Mr. Steiner was not present at the meeting, I was present at the meeting. I know what happened and we did not bring intense pressure on Roger Altman. Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman- The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Moseley-Braun Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sitting here listening to all this, and I've got to tell you I was reminded of nothing so much as the Famous Japanese film Rashaman. I wrote down Kurasawa as the director and I know some movie buffs will probably write in and tell me who it really was, but if You re- 509 member that film, it was a situation in which the same set of activities were perceived differently by the different actors, the different people who were involved. And I think that's what we've run up against here, the difference in perceptions. You saw an employee who had received legal advice that it was not required that he step away from his job, and you insisted that he not back away from it. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I asked him to reconsider whether he really shouldn't step away. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. That's even better. Mr. Altman, on the other hand, based on his testimony, felt duty bound to continue with his work, albeit as a one man band. Frankly, I think that the confluence of his two jobs, the way the two jobs came together, should have been, but was not, obvious to him, to you and to the Counsel at Treasury, but it wasn't. I think what you're hearing from the Committee today is that this Committee sees an employee with regard to Roger Altman's role. An employee with a potentially-with two potentially conflicting jobs who was so personally associated with the Presidency, in the public mind and ours, that there was no way that he could have avoided the appearance of impropriety or unfairness or partisanship on behalf of a case that in- volved the President personally. I mean, I think that's the Rashaman that we have here, and I think it is those irreconcilable differences in perception that this issue is joined. The sadness here, of course, and there have been some harsh words and I don't want to sound like I'm piling on, but I, with my colleagues, concur in their judgment about the recusal decision, the sadness here is that reputations for integrity and legal acumen are hung in the balance when you're talking in a Senate hearing on national television. But is it not fair to say, Mr. Nussbaum, that you gave the best advice that you could under the circumstances as you saw them at the time?
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(23:40:18) Senator DODD. You've been very candid with us and I think most of us like candor. All of us know the feelings when someone has been at cross-hairs with us politically, and all of a sudden we hear they're about to get a position and to be in a position of some influence and how we all react. I think everyone at this table, whether we agreed with what Mr. Stephanopoulos did or not-I'm not certain he does even-could certainly appreciate his reaction to the notion that Jay Stephens was going to be on the case. I don't think there is a Member at this dais who doesn't sympathize with those personal feelings because we've all been there. The question that I'm raising in a sense is you were candid enough to express to us your concern about Ms. Kulka, given the previous history with the law firm that you represented, and the reasons why. I'm asking whether or not that in any way was going to cause you or the White House in some way to interfere with her being Mr. NUSSBAUM. No. Senator DODD [continuing]. Approved for the job of handling the case with the RTC. Mr. NUSSBAUM. No. By the time I learned about Ms. Kulka on February 2nd, she was already hired as was Mr. Ryan and once I learned they were hired, even though I asked about our processes) I took not a single step to try in any way to unhire them. Senator DODD. OK let me go back Mr. NUSSBAUM. I acted with them just the way I acted with re- Spect to Mr. Stephens-when I learned about Mr, Stephens, when I did go a little bit ballistic internally in the White House. Some- body used the term about me so I'll use it about myself Senator DODD. We don't know anyone on this Committee that goes ballistic, I want to tell you, We don't have that problem in the Senate I want you to know. [Laughter.] Mr. NUSSBAUM. Even with respect to Mr. Stephens, I said we would and should not do anything about it. Senator DODD. I don't know which evening it was now that there's been so many of these--but Senator Sarbanes I thought 489 asked a very good line of questioning and I'm trying to recall, maybe it was of Mr. Altman, maybe it was of Mr. Steiner, I can't recall who it was. This is a very important meeting for this Senator anyway, the meeting of September 29th, because it relates to Mr. Altman's testimony before the Committee on the 24th on this conflict we have between what Ms. Hanson remembers as to why she was at the Waco meeting and what her job was to do there in terms of her discussing the matter of the referrals with you. What Senator Sarbanes' line of questioning had to do with is this; is Ms. Hanson or was Ms. Hanson the kind of person that would have initiated that kind of a discussion on her own. Senator Sarbanes can interrupt me if I don't ask this correctly, but given the fact that she was General Counsel there, and obviously had a line of authority but certainly moved around, you said you'd met with her, I think, a number of other times, talked to her a number of times. Is it inconceivable that Ms. Hanson could have had this conversation with you without being directed by Mr. Altman, if she had acquired the information directly from someone else and not Mr. Altman? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's a tough question. I don't Senator DODD. Do you understand the importance of it? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Oh, I understand the importance of it. Sort of a fight I want to stay out of right now. Senator DODD. You'll get a lot of allies. Mr. NUSSBAUM. It's-the answer is I don't know, I have great respect actually for both of them. I have respect for Mr. Altman, I've known him a while, I don't agree with everything he's done, but I have great respect for him. But I also have come to know Ms. Hanson to some extent, and I have great respect for her. I think she's- Senator DODD. Was your relationship The CHAIRMAN. I'm sorry. What were you going to say? You think Mr. NUSSBAUM, I think she's a woman of integrity and forthrightness and she's a good person. I mean I dealt with her a number of occasions when she was General Counsel of the Treasury and I was White House Counsel, so I have great respect for both these people and obviously there is some sort of conflict between them with respect to their recollection. Maybe he doesn't remember and she does remember it, maybe they're both telling the truth. That's what I hope is happening. Senator DODD, Let me ask you one more question. I think you've answered it to the best of your ability. But you knew her well enough that she wouldn't necessarily have been in awe of you and your position at the White House, she would have been comfortable based on previous relationships to bring up a subject matter with without having authority from someone else to raise it with .,;."You? Is that a fair statement? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, I agree with that. I'm not saying that happened here but I agree, yes. She wouldn't have been in awe of me. I didn't find very many people in Government in awe of me.
July 29, 1994 - Part 3
(13:00:13) Senator D'AMATO. Why don't I give you these questions in writing and then if you could ascertain where that pager went, how it went, under whose direction, what took place to it, was there a check made for numbers. Did it go to White House personnel? flow come it was removed from the body? Is that usual procedure? Mr. COLOMBELL. I think that's a question, if you re saying is that usual U.S. Park Police procedure, I would respectfully submit that you ask the Park Police that question. It is my understanding that the pager was returned by the Park Police. And as I mentioned, I would prefer to be able to provide a more complete response in writing if I could, sir. Senator D'AMATO. Fine. All right, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator D'Amato. Does anyone on our side seek recognition at this point? Senator Sarbanes. 51 Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Monroe, you were asked about logging a vehicle out of the White House- this was not a White House vehicle or White House car or anything, it was Mr, Foster's own car. Mr. MONROE. It was his personal 1993 Honda that was used, his personal vehicle. Senator SARBANES. That's the car he commuted to work with and then he left and went out this afternoon in that car? Mr. MONROE. That's correct, sir. Senator SARBANES. And I wanted to clarify one thing about the pager Mr. Colombell, which is I think you indicated had a message or two from Nussbaum or someone in his office on it; is that--I mean, an effort to reach him; is that correct? Mr. COLOMBELL. That, I believe, is correct. Senator SARBANES. Now, Foster was Deputy Counsel to Nussbaum; is that correct? Mr. COLOMBELL. That is correct, Senator. Senator SARBANES. In other words, he worked in that office? Mr. COLOMBELL. That is correct, he worked next door. Senator SARBANES. Dr. Hirsch, I'd like to ask you if you could just briefly give the Committee your background and experience in working these kinds of issues. Dr. HIRSCH. How about my current position, sir? Do you want me to review my entire curriculum vitae? Senator SARBANES. I'm sure that's very lengthy. Why don't you give enough of it so that we can qualify you as an expert here today. Dr. HiRSCH. I've been a practicing full-time career forensic pathologist since I was honorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force in 1969. Since then, I've worked in my capacity as a forensic pathologist for 10 years at the coroner's office in Cleveland, Ohio, 51/2 years at the coroner's office in Cincinnati, Ohio. I served 4 years as the chief medical examiner of Suffolk County, New York, which is the eastern two-thirds of Long Island. And for the last 51/2 years I've been the chief medical examiner of the city of New York. Senator SARBANES. Chairman Riegle asked you your view on whether the Vincent Foster death was suicide and my recollection is you said yes, absolutely; is that correct? HIRSCH. Yes, sir. Senator SARBANES. Now, you served on a panel, you were one of a four- member panel that examined this matter; is that correct? Dr. HIRSCH, Yes, sir. Senator SARBANES. Are you in a position to tell us whether the other members of the panel agree with you in that judgment-is their judgment the same as yours on this matter? Dr. HIRSCH. Absolute] Senator SARBANES. All four of you? HIRSCH. All four of us unanimous without objection. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Monroe, are you familiar with the other scenarios or theories that are being a advanced with respect to the Foster death? Mr. MONROE. Somewhat familiar, Senator. There have been a host of them, 52 Senator SARBANES. I take it in preparing the report, you examine them; is that correct, or at least some of the assertions that were being made? I mean, there have been some very far-out assertions made in this matter. Mr. MONROE, That is correct, Senator. Senator SARBANES. Did you find any credible basis for those as. sertions? They're really directly contrary to the conclusions you've reached. You've reached a conclusion, and we understand how firm you are about it. I'm just curious as to whether you think these alternative scenarios have any credible bases to them. Thank you. The CHAiRmAN. Senator Bond. Senator BOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Monroe, I am concerned about the basis for the conclusion in the Independent Counsel's report that the Whitewater/Madison. issues were neither a matter of express concern in the White House nor that Mr. Foster did not have a concern about Whitewater. Were you the one who conducted the interview of Assistant U.S. Attorney, Fletcher Jackson, in Little Rock? Mr. MONROE. I was not. Senator BOND. Who did? Mr. MONROE. The location? Where was that, Senator BOND Who did the interview of the sir? Assistant U.S. Attorney Fletcher Jackson?
LAWMAKERS
01.06.49-Shot of C-5 cargo plane on tarmac, plane is mammoth in size, its nose hinges upward to open cargo bay. DUKE v.o.-financially strapped LOCKHEED corp. of Georgia builds the C-5. Clip of BOEING promo film of flying 747. v.o.-alternative (cheaper) plan is to buy surplus 747's and convert to cargo uses. Exterior of Capitol. Shot of Sen. HENRY JACKSON (D-WA) in office, says NUNN is a fine Senator and individual, but he's trying to dish out PORK. Shot of SAM NUNN (D-GA), says that JACKSON is trying to dish out PORK himself. Shots of Senate Committee hearing with lots of PENTAGON BRASS at witness table. One General says the C-5 is absolutely necessary. Shot of JACKSON asking why the PENTAGON hasn't been upfront about the C-5's COST. Suggests he smells a rat. 01.09.08-Shot of GENERAL pointing to slide show, illustrating the C-5's superiority to the 747 for carrying tanks. NUNN reading testimonials about the greatness of the C-5, gets the generals to agree. DUKE alludes to a "whiff of pork". Shot of NUNN in library, says that it's not a matter of homestate PORK, to suggest that is disservice to both Senators. Shot of JACKSON in office, likewise denies that the debate is all about PORK, says he wants to save the taxpayers money. 01.10.58-WERTHEIMER-Eventually, Senate decided that JACKSON'S plan was better, elected to save by refitting 747's. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT and LOCKHEED trying to get HOUSE to vote for the C-5. Notes that LOCKHEED and BOEING took out huge newspaper ads for their respective planes. 01.11.37-Rep. TOM DOWNEY (D-NY) in debate in House, holds newspaper with full-page ad for LOCKHEED C-5. Says he's offended that LOCKHEED put all pictures in the ad, implying that Congressmen can't read, says eventually maybe LOCKHEED will lobby in Comic Book form. WERTHEIMER v.o.-each contractor had its advocates, cites some arguments on each side. Shot of AL SWIFT (D-WA), calls the C-5 a turkey. Says the wings fall off, compares it to a flying Dumbo. WERTHEIMER v.o.-notes that most ardent advocates come from the states where planes are built. Shot of NEWT GINGRICH in debate [Lockheed is in his homeTOWN], says the 747 is a joke as a military transport. Rep. BO GINN says BOEING is a great company, but the 747 is the wrong choice. 01.13.26-Rep. JOEL PRITCHARD (D-WA) says the 747 is the best choice when cost is considered. Rep. NORM DICKS (D-WA) says the C-5 is a piece of junk, "the most discredited plane in history", and will cost taxpayers $7-8 Billion more. Shot of LES ASPIN (D-WI) in debate, says that the PENTAGON must be right, it should get anything it wants [basically, paraphrased]. 01.14.45-DUKE/WERTHEIMER-discussion of the debate, possibility of investigation of LOCKHEED for its salesmanship-fine line in PENTAGON'S tactics between informing the Congress (duty) versus lobbying on behalf of a contractor (illegal). Discussion of TAX BILL, which is scrambling party lines. DUKE-reports that Congress has rescinded TAX DEDUCTIONS for members of Congress for living expenses in Washington. The House angry at Senate because Senators can make unlimited outside income from speeches but denied that right to the House, also basic issue: Do members of Congress get paid enough ($61,000)? 01.16.17-Exterior of a suburban Washington townhouse, shots of swanky houses in GEORGETOWN. Shot of Rep. DAN GLICKMAN (D-KS) in office, says that Congressmen get a good salary in absolute terms, but given living expenses in Washington and work expenses, it doesn't leave much extra. Shots of GLICKMAN and his wife at checkout of supermarket. Mrs. GLICKMAN v.o. concedes that the figure of $61G is a lot of Benjamins, but with travel back to home district and other expenses, it gets tight. GLICKMAN in office, says PUBLIC SERVANTS shouldn't be out to get rich, but they need to be paid better because many congressmen quit to make three times as much money as lobbyists. Shot of title page of a Federal Commission report on Congressional pay. Titles show quotes "massive exodus of top government leaders". 01.18.10-Shot of Sen. WILLIAM PROXMIRE (D-WI) seated in library, says that $61G is a lot of Benjamins, more than 95 percent of people make, given the other advantages of office, pay is more than adequate. Shot of rostrum of House chamber, Congressmen in debate, lots of parliamentary maneuvering to get a TAX BREAK for Congress approved without either reading the bill for the TV cameras or taking a recorded vote. Shot of Rep. MILLICENT FENWICK (R-NJ) arguing that the sneaky maneuver was uncouth, dishonorable. DUKE v.o.-Congress cut itself other breaks. Graphic shows tax deductions of $75/day for business expenses. Shot of Anne McBride of COMMON CAUSE, says that the law lets Congress claim ordinary living expenses as "business expenses"-laundry, cleaning, transportation-no other taxpayers can do this.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Gordon C. Strachan, July 23, 1973
U.S. Senator Lowell P. Weicker (R-CT) asks former White House aide Gordon C. Strachan if he would describe the conditions which exist, insofar as Strachan is concerned, when he would want to go back and take a look at his records and retrieve any material he may possess from the Executive Office Building. Strachan says after the campaign he took all files considered Presidential papers to room 522 in the EOB and locked them in at least 6 safes. He began going back to those files and papers when it became important for him to remember important dates and meetings. He was given access to the building but forbidden from making copies or taking notes. Senator Weicker asks if anyone was present in the room with him. Strachan says a Secret Service agent was present. Senator Weicker posits a hypothetical situation where Strachan wants to find some details or information and he goes into the room to retrieve a document: what can Strachan do at that point? Strachan says he can read the document and put it back in the safe. Weicker wonders if he then goes outside the room to take notes; Strachan says no. He remembers as much as he can in a 2-3 hour time-span, leave and lock the room before going over to his lawyer's office and recount what he had read.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Thank you. Let me, Judge, say a couple of things and we will let you go. First of all, this unfortunately is not the first time this committee has been presented with a situation like this. It has been the first time we have been presented one that involved a Supreme Court Justice. We have other people nominated before this Court where there are allegations by former wives of mistreatment and wife beating. There is no appropriate forum to resolve that, as you point out. Now, we have an option in that particular case to say, well, we will send it to the court first. Before we decide whether to confirm this particular person, have the court decide that issue. Believe me, I would like that. I did not sign onto this job or run for it to be a judge. If I wanted to do that, I would be a judge now in my home State. I don't want to be a judge. I hate this job. But all my colleagues here were telling everybody how awful the process is. Let me be completely blunt about it. It is like democracy. It is a lousy form of government, except that nobody has figured out another way. Now, I can turn around and I can say to this particular person whose wife has come forward and said, I have been abused, I can say, I will tell you what, we are going to disregard that and we are going to confirm you anyway. Or I can say I don't believe it and therefore, I am not going to tell these fellows, which I have done on other matters unrelated to wife beating. There has been more nominees sent up here in the last two administrations that have had drug problems, and I never even told these folks about, because it happened 10, 20, 30 years ago. So I take the heat and I take the responsibility and I will continue to do it as long as I am Chairman, no matter what these guys think of this process, okay? Number one. Number two, number two, when an allegation of consequence comes forward I do not have the recourse to send it to the courts. I have the recourse only to send it to my colleagues. There is no other institutional way of doing it. I made a judgment on this one. My trust was violated by somebody. And then the fat was in the fire. And we would be in the same position if the day before the hearing began Ms. Hill, unrelated to any statement of this committee, stood up and held a press conference and said, as I spoke with counsel, as the possibility could happen, from the White House and just held a press conference. We would be in the same spot. We could say we are not going to resolve that, let's put this nomination on hold and send it to the courts. Not a possibility. Not able to do that no matter what my colleagues who are now telling everybody how horrible this process is.
August 2, 1994 - Part 11
(01:05:37) And so I'm not suggesting that you are going to think of doing anything other than what you've testified. You ad your own pur pose your own mind, but you changed your mind. You said all right, I'll sleep on it, you come back and you have the next day and again the meeting on the 3rd, recusal, precipitated by that brow- 544 beating-and that's my characterization now, but if you read eve body else's that probably isn't inaccurate-one by Bernie Nuss- baum who is the President's attorney. Now we go on. On March 3 you write another letter and again you fail to mention the recusal of February 2. You bring up the meeting, the meeting that took place on the 3rd, and didn't you mention it at that time? Is that unreasonable to You see, look, you are correcting the record, Podesta tells you the meeting on the 2nd, you didn't correct the record. Is it because you don't want to say to the Committee at that time, look, I did go in there to, and I was going to, recuse myself and this took place? I mean that's a reasonable explanation. I can understand it. 1, an: 7, Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I think the record will show or does show that when Mr. Podesta called me and asked me about that, I said that I thought my answer was responsive to the question. Now; that shows, for whatever it's worth, my state of mind. I thought my answer was responsive to the question and I believe that he'll con- firm that I said that, On the first matter, the fall meetings, I was taken aback and before the end of the day I sent the Committee a letter indicating I just learned about it. Now I just thought that my answer was responsive. Senaotr D'AMATO. Well, it's not until March 21, and that's nearly a month later, that you correct your testimony once again and you finally allude to that February 2 discussion of recusal. I'd have to suggest to you when I begin to read all the other things, I come to the conclusion, given your discussion that you outlined in your diary, you don't want to discuss what happened. The diary where Maggie Williams tells you that the White House is "paralyzed" by Whitewater, Mrs. Clinton in particular. And I have to come to a conclusion, reasonable people might even disagree, that that's why Maggie Williams is at all of these meetings. What is Mrs. Clinton's Chief of Staff doing at these meetings to briefed, the one on February 2, the one on February 3, conversations that she has with you on January 11 that you record in your diary? Where did she get the impression that Ms. Reno was attempting to limit the scope of the-I mean, this is an impression that she conveyed to you. Whether or not it was accurate or not, she actually told you this. You recorded that, I mean you recorded this faithfully as you remembered it at the time; is that true? Mr. ALTMAN. As you see in the notes I drew that inference. You'll have the opportunity to ask a whole variety of people as to whether I drew the correct inference. Mr. Cutler believes that I didn't. In other words Senator DAMATO. Let me give you Mr. ALTMAN. In other words, it didn't happen. Senator D'AMATO. Let me give you something that you quoted in that diary. You said Maggie Williams indicated that "Hillary Clinton doesn't want the counsel poking into 20 years of public life 'in Arkansas." And that's quoted. And here's-you have Lloyd Bentsen and he goes over and he says, and you quote, be's going to go over to see George on Whitewater to "recommend lancing the boil." 19 Of getting this out, getting you recused. 545 Mr. ALTMAN. No, Senator, I'm sorry. That's not what I meant in that. Senator DAMATO. What did you mean by that? Mr. ALTMAN. Secretary Bentsen, who's got the best judgment of anybody I've ever met, thought that the White House should get on with it, get the Independent Counsel in place and move forward that way. That's what he meant by "lance the boil" or, at least, as I remember it. Nothing to do with recusal.
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(12:45:17) Secretary BENTSEN. I recall he told me that but not at that time. I don't remember the date, and I know I was relieved when he told me. And, as I have found out additional facts subsequent to that, if I'd have been him-if I would have been in his position, I sure would have recused myself. Senator HATCH. He stated that the first time he decided to recuse himself was February 25th. Would that be consistent with your recollection? Secretary BENTSEN. Well, at that time, yes. If that wasn't the date, it's close to it. Senator HATCH. Were you aware that Treasury General Counsel had recommended to Mr Altman that he recuse himself from Madison matters before that? Secretary BENTSEN. I don't remember being told that. Senator HATCH. OK. Did you at the time have an opinion on whether Mr. Altman should recuse himself-well, you've expressed that. Secretary BENTSEN. Yes. Senator HATCH. You said that if it had been your choice, you would have done it? Secretary BENTSEN. Yes. Senator HATCH. Can you tell us why you, if it had been your choice, you would have done it under those circumstances? Secretary BENTSEN. Well, I think he was put in a position where he was considered a friend of the President and he was being chal- 53 lenged that that friendship would influence his judgment and I think he was right to just get rid of that argument. Senator HATCH. OK. Yesterday, Mr. Altman said something to the effect that you expressed your own surprise or puzzlement to him that he did not recuse himself, that it was in his own self-interest to recuse. Did you offer Mr. Altman any advice on recusal from Madison matters and, if so, what was that advice? Did you, for example, tell Mr. Altman that recusing himself or making a decision to recuse was something he had to do? Secretary BENTSEN. I told him he had to make that decision that was his, his alone-that he had the facts, that I did not. Senator HATCH. Did anyone from the White House ever discuss the matter of Mr. Altman's recusal with you? Secretary BENTSEN. I don't remember anyone in the White House discussing it with me. Senator HATCH. Thank you. That's all I have. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Murray. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR MURRAY Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome Mr. Secretary. Again, I have the privilege of going last and listening to all of the comments before me. We've been here for 31/2 hours and I have to ask you the question I've been asking myself for the last several hours. Why are you here? Secretary BENTSEN. Oh, it is not for me to say. Senator MURRAY. Well, as long as you are here, I really have to ask you a question. You knew Jack Kennedy, you knew Sam Ervin, you knew Howard Baker. You've been here a long time. I'm new to this. If you were sitting on this side of the table listening to all this testimony and hearing everything, what conclusions would you come to? Secretary BENTSEN. Boy, I don't want to tell this Committee what to do, but, Senator, there has been-you've had three investigations and they've been independent investigations. They say no criminal act was committed, no violation of ethical standards, but some troubling things. And 1, as Secretary of the Treasury, assume the responsibility for what happens in Treasury, and I have also told you we're going to try to correct some of those concerns, and we'll be pleased to have the recommendation of this Committee, which has been deeply involved in this issue, and in turn that of the Justice Department and the IG and I sure want to get the Office of Government Ethics involved in it. And we're going to move and try to see that we don't have this kind of problem develop in the future and then I'd arrive at a judgment, but that's yours. Senator MURRAY. Do you think anybody should be removed from their job? Secretary BENTSEN. I think that whatever happened here was not with the intent to harm. I think there were some errors in judgment, but I haven't found anybody that calls them right all the time,