Advanced Search
August 4, 1994 - Part 8
(17:35:16) That young man was not at that meeting, and so if we are going to use hearsay for some people to make a case that this White House exerted terrible pressure on Mr. Altman, I think it's important that we continue to get to the bottom of it. And from what I know from you Mr. Ickes, from Maggie Williams today and I'm going to ask Mr. Nussbaum, I think there were questions raised about this recusal issue and I'm sure it might have been something that was uncomfortable, but I do not see intense pressure being exerted. And I want to ask you this last time, would you say that intense pressure was in fact applied to Mr. Altman on the recusal issue by anyone in the White House? 388 Mr. ICKES. In -my view, no pressure was applied and Mr. Altman is a very sophisticated person who has served in Washington before. He, in my view, is not a person you push around. Senator BOXER. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Boxer. We are now coming down the home stretch on a vote on the Senate Floor. I'm going to, in a moment, put the Committee into recess and give the witnesses a chance to refresh themselves. I've said to Senator Kerry, who left early to vote, that when he comes back that he will start and resume the hearing and that we'll rotate at that point to the next Republican. Senator SARBANES. Could we just clarify one thing? The CHAIRMAN. Of course. Senator SARBANES. When Mr. Bennett was questioning Mr. Ickes about Nussbaum's excitable disposition, and Mr. Ickes said well his disposition is generally excitable, and therefore I think was making the point that he was not excited beyond that and then Mr. Stephanopoulos nodded and Mr. Bennett said well, I take that to mean a yes. The question is whether the nod was a yes to the question as to whether Nussbaum was excited or the nod was a yes to the Ickes observation that Nussbaum's general disposition is an excitable one. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I think it was a nod to the Ickes observation, sir. Senator SARBANES. It was a nod to the Ickes observation. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Yes, sir. Senator SARBANES. So you were in effect Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I was not at the meeting, I couldn't respond to that. Mr. ICKES. But Senator Sarbanes, I wanted to go back in a clarify Senator Bennett's-when he said he took that as a ye was a little disconcerted by that and what Id said before and what I say now is that Mr. Nussbaum's demeanor was his regular run of the mill, everyday demeanor. It was not anything in excess of what one who has worked with Mr. Nussbaum knows him to be. He's a very Senator SARBANES. That's how I understood your answer. And you were making the point that his usual demeanor is what other people would regard as excitable. Mr. ICKES. I think compared to myself or Mr. Stephanopoulos, he works at a higher level. Senator SARBANES. We're certainly guaranteeing that when he appears before us, he'll be quite excitable. The CHAIRMAN. He'll have to be now. When he comes in this afternoon, if he's not excitable, then he's got a problem. Senator SARBANES. I was concerned because Mr. Bennett took a nodding by Mr. Stephanopoulos and he says well, I take that to be a yes and the question was what was Mr. Stephanopoulos nodding yes to. Your observation that Nussbaum's usual demeanor is an ex- citable one or Mr. Bennett's question that Nussbaum was excited in the sense beyond the ordinary I take it. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I was nodding to Mr. Ickes. Mr. ICKES. He was not beyond the ordinary, Senator. 389 The CHAIRMAN. But if he's perpetually excited how would we know when he was beyond the norm? What would he do then? Does he break furniture, or what happens? Anyway you can answer that later. The Committee stands in recess for the duration of the vote. (17:39:22) [Recess.] (17:39:30) Commentary of hearing hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG from tv studio, they also talk to J. WILLIAM CADINHA Majority Counsel
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(23:50:08) Mr. NUSSBAUM. Well, thank you, Senator. Senator BENNETT. You've come in here and told us exactly where you stand and we haven't had the lapses of memory nearly as much as the kind we've had from some others. Maybe it has to do with the fact that you don't work for the Government anymore and your job is not in jeopardy. I would just like to make a few observations, I associate myself completely with the Chairman's opening statement. This Committee feels very strongly about the issue of RTC independence, In my opening statement to the hearings that was my central focus because at that time I didn't understand any of the rest of this stuff -that we've now come to understand. I was offended by the testimony of one of the RTC employees, that the RTC has been more politicized in this Administration than in previous ones. There were several who testified to that. Mr. Altman, of course, denied it, but the career RTC employee had that feeling. That may ,be part of the reason behind the Chairman's passion because this Administration allowed Mr. Altman to remain in a position where structurally the independence of the RTC was compromised. What should have been a 2-week, 3-week arrangement until somebody was found and confirmed turned into a year and a half ,Of built-in conflict of interest, in terms of this Committee's interest; that is, that the two should be independent. You're not responsible for that. It's too late to do anything about it now, but understand that's a large reason why the Chairman was as passionate as he was in MY view and one of the reasons why I identify with him. Now the other half of his statement about the recusal issue, I'm .not a lawyer. I think I can understand the English language withOut having been to law school. Turn to page 13 of your statement. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Senator BENNETT. You're quoting the OGE guidelines and you very passionately say this means the official has a duty to do his or her duty and you've been very passionate about that. The last 492 phrase of that guideline referring to employees are expected to perform their duties unless there is a reason their participation, "ill the last phrase, will result"- this is the English language I think 1 understand----"will result in an appearance of conflict significantly detrimental to the public's legitimate perception of the fairness of the governmental processes involved." Now Secretary Altman made the decision that his involvement in this would result in an appearance of conflict that would be significantly detrimental to the public's perception of the fairness of this thing and he came to the White House to announce that decision, He had already checked with Secretary Bentsen, and Secretary Bentsen has testified that if he had been in Mr. Altman's position, he would have recused himself. So what you're really saying here, Mr. Nussbaum, in your passionate statement that every official should do his duty and we need to enforce that throughout the whole Administration' and this is something you would absolutely establish is that if Secretary Bentsen had asked you for advice, you would have told him do your duty and stay there. My only comment is I think Secretary Bentsen's advice was the correct one. I think subsequent events have demonstrated that Secretary Bentsen's instincts were the correct ones and Mr. Altman's instincts were the correct ones before something happened at the White House to turn him, and that's why I find myself in agreement with the Chairman's position. Thank you. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Can I respond? Senator BENNETT. Absolutely. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I don't believe Mr. Altman made a decision nor did he say he made a decision when he came to see us, that his continuing to act would result in an appearance of conflict significantly detrimental to the public's legitimate perception of the fairness of the governmental processes involved. He didn't make such a decision. He said just the opposite in effect. What he said to me is that he had consulted ethics people and they told him that he was not legally or ethically required to recuse himself.
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(10:35:29) We must ask whether the transfer of the documents to the President's Private Counsel violates the requirements that the documents remain in the custody and control of the United States. At least one court has plainly held that the Presidential Records Act "leaves no room for any governmental official to enter into agreements conferring ownership or control of Presidential records to any person or entity other than the United States." That's American Historical Association v. Peterson, and that was a 1995 case. Third, the President, through his lawyers, refused to release several of the documents retained by the White House on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Why? Why should the President claim attorney-client privilege over State documents ostensibly worked on by Mr. Foster? Perhaps an even more important consideration must also be raised, In light of the fact that the President released a number of the documents in his possession and in the possession of his private lawyers to the news media, has he not, in effect, waived any right to assert a privilege of any type? The entire Whitewater investigation has been plagued by Presidential declarations that everything relevant to Whitewater had been released, only to be followed by the discovery of additional unreleased documents. Finally, as documents trickled out of the White House, they have in large part been redacted. I question whether this is the type of openness the President promised the American people, and I look forward to ascertaining the answers to these troubling questions over the next few weeks. 17 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes, we have some more time, but let's keep it moving back and forth, so we'll yield to you. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY Senator KERRY. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes, Mr. Chairman. Almost a year ago today we began these hearings and, at that time, we examined the death of Vince Foster and determined in our wisdom, as each inquiry before us had, that his untimely and tragic death was indeed a suicide. Now, after millions of dollars, thousands of hours of Special Prosecutor interrogation, and thousands of hours of FBI inquiries and hundreds of FBI agents, hundreds of news stories and investigations, we are about to examine a second phase of events, the handling of documents. Clearly, the first round of hearings titillated and provided opportunity for the political joke and rumor mill. Conspiratorial lists were served up a full plate of fare for every paranoid theory imaginable to take flight, but the bottom line is- and the record shows-that no evidence came before this Committee to alter the sad conclusion regarding Vince Foster's death and none have yet surfaced, though still one inquiry continues. I have no doubt that the next days will serve as more grist for the mill. There will be embarrassments, and there will be contradictions, contradictions of memory, There will certainly be additional speculation and considerable questioning of how some in high positions made some of the judgments or acted the way they did. In the end, though, it is my hope that we, and much more, importantly the American people, will fairly judge these actions and this record in the light of the very difficult human moment the witnesses found themselves in, which both Senator Sarbanes and Senator Dodd have described. I believe that this Committee acquitted itself well in the first round of hearings chaired by Senator Riegle. Our fellow citizens don't want these hearings to be a partisan circus. They don't want us wasting money on a political witch hunt or creating theories out of whole cloth, They want a fair and politically neutral search for the truth, and all of us who are spending so much time rhetorically dealing with Government waste certainly don't want to spend taxpayers' dollars scoring points against each other. That's not what the hearing process is supposed to be about, it's not what the United States Senate is supposed to be about, and it's certainly not what the American people want. They want and they deserve the truth.
August 2, 1994 - Part 7
(18:45:10) Mr. ALTMAN. I testified to the best of my ability on February 24, and I testified truthfully. I don't know what Mr. Steiner meant by that, but as you know, I amended the record to include four contacts, which I believe were incidental, which had nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison. And in -my response to Senator Domenici, I believe, I indicated that there may have been other contacts,, and I think the effect of my words was they were incidental, but the contacts that I subsequently described in amending the record had nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison. For example, the night before my testimony, I advised Mr. Ickes that I was going to announce that I was stepping down as RTC Chairman on March 30. That has nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison. I ran into Mr. Nussbaum in a corridor, and he advised me that the Administration would shortly have its nomination coming forward to this Committee for purposes of the permanent RTC Chairmanship. That has nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison. I supplemented the record in an effort to bend over backward to provide to Senator Riegle and the Committee information which I thought the Committee might want to have, but I testified to one substantive contact about the RTC investigation of Madison, and I believe that's true. senator SASSER. Now, let me ask you about another matter of some relevance here. You've been asked about many matters that, frankly, I don't think have much relevance, to be perfectly candid about it, but I want to ask you about a matter that perhaps does have some relevance. 443 In the February 2 meeting at the White House in Mack McLarty's office-I believe the meeting took place there--you telephoned - Mr. McLarty to set up the meeting, did you not? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator SASSER. But Mr. McLarty was not present there. The meeting was simply held in his office. Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir, be was not present. I believe the meeting was held in his office. Senator SASSER. And among the participants there was Mr. Nussbaum and also Harold Ickes. Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator SASSER. Now, did you inform the participants at this February 2 meeting to the---or did you tell them with regard to Madison that it was "unlikely the investigation could be completed and a recommendation made by the General Counsel prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations," which would have occurred on February 28? Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir, I did not. I am sure that I did not. Senator SASSER. Well, did you say anything of that sort or anything similar to it? Mr. ALTMAN. I have here a copy of the talking points for the meeting, which Senator Riegle earlier provided to me, and it reads as follows: "It is not certain when the anal ysis will be completed, but it will be before February 28." 1 think that explicitly refutes this notion that we somehow provided them some improper information about inability to complete the investigation. It will be completed before February 28. Senator SASSER. Let me ask you this: The statute of limitations had been extended before on at least one occasion. Did you anticipate the statute of limitations would be extended once again beyond February 28? Mr. ALTMAN. I did not anticipate that on February 2, Senator, no. Senator SASSER. Mr. Steiner said-I think Mr. Steiner said he anticipated it would be extended once again, as the President ultimately did extend it, but you did not believe that to be the case on February 2. Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir, on February 2, 1 don't believe I was aware of the prospects for extending the statute. My recollection is that the Congress dealt with that very quickly. I only recall becoming aware of that a day or two before the Congress actually passed it. Senator SASSER. Why in the world, Mr. Altman, would. Harold Ickes make the statement that you allegedly said, and I quote, "it's "likely that the investigation could be completed and a recommendation made by the General Counsel prior to the expiration Of the statute of limitations"? Where could Harold Ickes have gotten that? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator Sasser, I did not say that and let me remind you of the evidence that supports. Senator SASSER. I am not accusing you of it. Mr. ALTMAN. I know. I want to remind you of the evidence that Supports that I did not say that. I just talked about the talking Points. The Office of Government Ethics Report, taking testimony under oath from every one of the participants, found that no 444 nonpublic information was disclosed in that meeting. Mr. Cutler's report and the highly detailed chronology, no such information was given on February 2. Ellen Kulka made perfectly clear that no matter what, she and the RTC would be ready to make a decision by February 28. As I said, you can ask Mr. Ickes yourself when he appears before you. I believe that he did not intend to say that I told the White House the investigation could not he concluded. And as you know,, Ms. Kulka testified yesterday that that was inaccurate.
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(21:05:38) Senator DODD. I find that somewhat curious. Now you've received this hot line phone call from Mr. Eggleston outside of the Committee room because in Mr. Eggleston's opinion, Mr. Altman has just made a mistake; is that not true? 445 Mr. PODESTA. I don't believe Senator DODD. Someone in your office did, not you. Mr. PODESTA. I talked to Mr. Eggleston on the 25th. Senator DODD. On the 25th and so there is some concern about this testimony, Mr. PODESTA. Correct. Senator DODD. Mr. Steiner, of course, works for Mr. Altman. Mr. PODESTA. No, he works for Secretary Bentsen, but I think the point is fair. Senator DODD. The point I'm trying to get at is if we're concerned about this and here is someone who can maybe shed some light on what Mr. Altman's testimony was, what it should have been, why wouldn't you have raised the question with Mr. Steiner about the content of Mr. Altman's testimony? Mr. PODESTA. I may have, Senator, but I don't recall that. I think we had, as I said, a series of very brief information telephone calls. Senator DODD. Now, that hearing was televised on C-SPAN I believe, and I presume it was being carried live, but I don't know that. Was it being carried live? You had the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and others, the Secretary of the Treasury. Did you have-were you monitoring the hearing live? Mr. PODESTA. I was not. Senator DODD. Was anyone in the White House monitoring that hearing live? Mr. PODESTA. No, I don't think so. Senator DODD. You don't know. OK. Now, did you agree with Mr. Eggleston when he called and I gather said gee what did he tell you in that phone conversation? When did he call or what do you know that he may have said, not to you but to your office? I'm sorry. Mr. PODESTA. Why don't I testify to what 1 know which is the next day I think. He came to me and said Mr. Altman was asked to describe the meeting on February 2nd. He described it, he did not say that the topic of recusal had come up. He was concerned about that. Senator DODD. Who is this saying this? Mr. PODESTA- Mr. Eggleston said that to me. Senator DODD. Did he tell you that he felt that Mr. Altman had not answered candidly and honestly to this Committee? Mr. PODESTA. He was concerned that that was not-I'm not sure I would use the term "candid and honest," I think he was concerned that the full information was not provided to the Committee. Senator DODD, Had you read the testimony, by the way, the full transcript of the hearing at this point? Mr. PODESTA. No, I had not. Senator DODD. Had Mr. Eggleston read the transcript? Mr. PODESTA. No, he had not. Senator DODD. Had he talked with Mr. Altman? Mr. PODESTA. No, not to the best of my knowledge. Senator DODD. So in a subsequent conversation now with Mr. Altman, confronted with the information that he should have included that, as I understood your testimony a while ago to one of our colleagues here, Mr. Altman challenged that in fact he had not 446 been forthcoming because he interpreted the questions differently than Mr. Eggleston had. Mr. PODESTA. I wouldn't put that gloss on it. I think that Mr. Altman-when I raised the--specifically what I think I was referring to was Senator Bond's question and I read or paraphrased, I think I actually read it to him. He said that's correct, that he had no knowledge of the meetings and I believed him. Senator DODD. All right. My time is up Mr. Chairman, may I ask one clarification question. lt goes back to a moment ago and again comes back to the issue that was raised over the conflicting testimony between Ms. Hanson and Mr. Altman regarding the September 29th meeting. I think the record, if it's going to be consistent, should reflect that it's Ms. Hanson's recollection that she went to that meeting under the direction of Mr. Altman. Mr. Altman's testimony is that that was not the case, that he does not recall sending her there. The statements are being made that there you have a conflict between two people and I think to draw the conclusion that Mr. Altman should have mentioned the 29th meeting when pursuant to his own testimony he doesn't recall that at all and therefore would not have necessarily brought it up on the 24th, if you're to believe him that he did not recall that. I just want to make that point. Senator SARBANES. Fine. Senator Mack. Senator MACK. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Lindsey, I'd like to address a question to you. Mr. LINDSEY, Yes, sir. Senator MAC And it's going to cover a period of time from basi- callv September 30th to October 4th and 7th. Mr. LINDSEY. OR Senator MACK. But before I run through kind of a series of points you had a phone conversation with Jim Lyons on October 4th, I think? Mr. LINDSEY. I believe it was October the 4th, yes, sir. Senator MACK. Do you remember whether you made that call or he did? Mr. LINDSEY. I believe he called the White House. I was in California with the President. The phone call got relayed to me in California and I think I probably returned it.
July 20, 1995 - Part 1
(09:55:40) The CHAIRMAN. Major Hines. SWORN TESTIMONY OF ROBERT H. HINES MAJOR, U.S. PARK POLICE Mr. HINES. Good morning, Chairman. First, I want to thank you for your comments in your opening statement about the Park Police and our investigation. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Major Robert H. Hines, I joined the U.S. Park Police in 1967 after serving in the United States Marine Corps and the Maryland Army National Guard. From 1985 to 1991, 1 was the Commander of the U.S. Park Police Criminal Investigations Branch. Since 1991, 1 have been the Commander of the Office of Inspectional Services, U.S. Park Police. In that capacity, I also serve as the Force Public Information Officer. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I can only reiterate my desire to cooperate with this Committee in every possible way. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Major. Mr. Chertoff. Mr. CHERTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome everybody, It's evident you're all experienced in the area of law enforcement. Sergeant Braun, let me direct my attention to you first. I'd like you to focus, please, on July 20, 1993 at around 6 p.m. Did you get a call to attend a scene of a violent death at that point in time? Ms. BRAUN. Yes, I did. Mr. CHERTOFF. Who did you go to the scene with? Ms. BRAUN. I went to the scene with Investigator Rolla and Investigator Apt. Mr. CHERTOFF. Did you find at the scene the body of Vincent Foster? Ms. BRAUN. Yes, I did. Mr. CHERTOFF. Approximately how long did you remain at the scene that evening? Ms. BRAUN. Until approximately 8:30 in the evening. Mr. CHERTOFF. You remained there with Detective Rolla? Ms. BRAUN. Yes. Mr. CHERTOFF. Where did you go next? Ms. BRAUN. After we left the scene, we went to the hospital briefly to retrieve some property. Mr. CHERTOFF. After you were at the hospital, did you get a call to go pick somebody up? 148 Ms. BRAUN. Yes, we did. Mr. CHERTOFF. Who was that? Ms. BRAUN. We were requested to pick up Mr. David Watkins to allow him and his wife to assist us with the notification of the Fos- ter family. Mr. CHERTOFF. Did you go to pick up David Watkins? Ms. BRAUN. Yes, sir. Mr. CHERTOFF. Can you tell us how Mr. Watkins introduced him- self to you, what he told you his position was? Ms. BRAUN. It's been 2 years. I don't remember exactly how je introduced himself. It was fairly informal. He introduced himself David Watkins, and he presented me with one of his business cards. Mr. CHERTOFF. Did you learn from that business card that he was a senior official at the White House in charge of administration? Ms. BRAUN. Yes. Mr. CHERTOFF. Where did you and Detective Rolla take Mr. Watkins? Ms. BRAUN. We took Mr. Watkins to Mr. Foster's home in Georgetown. Mr. CHERTOFF. Is it fair to say you arrived there sometime between 10 and 10:30 p.m.? Ms. BRAUN. As my recollection serves me, it was around 10 p.m. Mr. CHERTOFF. In the car, did you have any discussion with Mr. Watkins on the way to the Foster residence? Ms. BRAUN. We had a brief conversation. I recall asking Mr. Watkins if he had any indications why Mr. Foster would have committed suicide, and at that point, the only thing that he could tell me was that he knew that Mr. Foster was upset over the Travelgate press that he had been getting. Mr. CHERTOFF. Was there any discussion in the car with Mr. Watkins about whether there was a note that had been found at the scene in Fort Marcy Park? Ms. BRAUN. No, I don't recall any conversation to that effect. Mr. CHERTOFF. Now, what was the reason you wanted to go to the house with Detective Rolla? Ms. BRAUN. We were responding to the Foster home to make the .death notification to Mr. Foster 's wife and relatives. Mr. CHERTOFF, Typically, does that process of making a death notification also involve a certain investigative element? Ms. BRAUN. Yes, it does. Mr. CHERTOFF. What is that? Ms. BRAUN. In a situation like that, it would be to look for information that would confirm that the suicide victim was despondent or had made prior attempts, anything that would help confirm our suspicions that it was, in fact, a suicide. Mr. CHERTOFF. Now, you've said "suspicions" that it was a suicide. Recognizing that we're concerned with your state of mind as it was that night, not what we now know 2 years later-as of that night, had you concluded from an investigative standpoint that it was a suicide? 149 Ms. BRAUN. I was fairly certain that it was a suicide but, during the course of an investigation, you would look for other information just to confirm it. Mr. CHERTOFF. So you still had to hold open the possibility of something else? Ms. BRAUN. That's correct. Mr. CHERTOFF. Can you describe very briefly what occurred, what the scene was at the Foster home when you arrived there with Mr. Watkins?
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(11:20:43) Mr. STEINER. Let me, if I might, Senator, give you the context of the circumstances surrounding this issue, which were as follows: I'm not an expert on this, but under the terms of the Vacancy Act, Mr. Altman's term as CEO was due to expire at the end of March. Unless the Administration had formally nominated a successor, Mr. Altman's tenure would expire. The question at hand was whether Mr. Altman should announce at the February 24 hearing that be planned definitely to step down at the end of his term or whether he should leave open the question in the event that the Administration had to formally nominate a successor. Senator SHELBY. Let me ask you this: Could those words you use there in your diary, could they have been-could it be interpreted, fairly that the White House people you were talking to there, or who knew that you were talking to him, did not want Altman to retain-to resign his job because they wanted him to retain it In 387 order to exert political control over an independent agency? That could be a fair reading of that, couldn't it, because his resignation, or his recusal, when they told him was unacceptable to him. Mr. STEINER. Senator , I want to be very clear on this. If my words are interpreted that way, that's my fault because that certainly was not my intention. My intention was on the sole subject of him stepping down as interim CEO of the RTC. Senator SHELBY. Now, one of the leading papers in the country, The Washington Post's writer, Howard Schneider, said today, I guess it was today, talking about your position, "now Steiner's lawyer is positioning him for a major league correction."' You're not going through a major league correction on your diaries today or you're not trying to do that? I know you're trying to explain some of it away but you're not trying to do an about face before this Committee on those diaries? Mr. STEINER. Senator, I'm trying to testify as accurately and completely as I possibly can, as I have done in four other instances of sworn testimony. Senator SHELBY. But you basically stand by your diaries? Mr. STEINER. Senator, I wrote them. I take Senator SHELBY. You didn't write them and put misleading information, or stories, or lies in them, did you? Mr. STEINER. It would have been easier for me, I suspect better for this Committee had I Senator SHELBY. Did you Mr. STEINER. Might I finish? Senator SHELBY. Go ahead. Mr. STEINER. It would have been easier for me and I suspect better for this Committee had I chosen my words more precisely or more accurately but that was not my intention or my intention was not to use the diary in this kind of format. That was not the purpose for keeping it. Senator SHELBY. We know it would be better for you, today, if we didn't have the diaries, But it's better for us and the American people that we have them because they gave us an inside contemporaneous view of what was going on over there, at least from your perspective and what you saw, what you observed, and what you were involved with. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Shelby. I've asked Senator DAmato if he would yield just briefly to me because I want to pursue one point that Senator Shelby made. I would appreciate it if you would turn to the first page of your diary entry, go about two- thirds of the way down, that second large paragraph, the sentence starts, "once again, they were very concerned." I'm going to ask you to read that sentence. Do you find that? Mr. STEINER. Yes, I have. The CHAIRMAN. OK Now, I want you to look at it for a minute, and then I'd like you to read that sentence verbatim. Mr. STEINER. "Once again, they were very concerned about him turning the RTC people they didn't know so RA did not formally commit himself to stepping -down [he could stay on if we had formally nominated a successor]." 388 The CHAIRMAN. Now, is that sentence-is that the way you put it in there? Mr. STEINER. Senator, I tried to transcribe this as exactly as I could. It would appear to me that a word is missing or at least, perhaps several words are missing. I suspect when I wrote it out by hand-I write this diary quickly and don't pay particular attention to my exact syntax and I don't go back to correct it. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have the notes from which you typed it? Mr. STEINER. I did not bring them with me, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. But do you have them? Mr. STEINER. My attorney does, yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. If you think that sentence is incorrectly transcribed, then I think we would need to see your notes on that sen. tence because I think what Senator Shelby has just pointed out is very important. Mr. STEINER. Senator, I will happily provide that to the Committee. I tried to be as careful as I possibly could in transcribing it and as I said, it was possible in the original text which was hand written, I left out words. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman I wonder if he could go ahead and talk to his lawyer and get those notes this afternoon. They probably might be here in the room.
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:35:22) I think the Secretary's point on that is extremely worthwhile. That jurisdiction may go to the Judiciary Committee. I would hope that someone would make some recommendations on how that might be dealt with as well. Secretary BENTSEN. Senator, that is right on the point and I had made it earlier, and you are amplifying it. That is particularly true for agencies that have some law enforcement responsibility. Senator DODD. Correct, correct. My time has expired. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Bond. Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Secretary BENTSEN. Thank you. Senator BOND. Just to follow up on a question that Senator Gramm was asking, I know it is very difficult to ask you to make decisions on the veracity of two of your top people. We do have what appears to be an irreconcilable conflict and it is a difficult task for us. But you have outlined to us today a very orderly procedure in which important matters are brought to your attention by means of a memo. 19 Would a discussion with a representative of the White House, like Mr. Nussbaum, by Counsel Jean Hanson from the Treasury or Treasury RTC, under your procedures have been recorded in a written memorandum? Would you expect that kind of information to be put in the record? Secretary BENTSEN. Not necessarily, particularly, Senator where there was nothing for me to do. There was no involvement by me. Senator BOND. Mr. Secretary, you have made it clear in your opening statement and in answers to questions that you told Mr. Altman, prior to February 25, that the judgment was his as to whether he should recuse himself, and that you were in no position to make that decision. The question we have is that Mr. Altman testified yesterday, without any hesitation, that you had recommended that he recuse himself. Secretary BENTSEN. My understanding what he testified to was that he thought I said that if I was in his position, that I would recuse myself. Frankly, I do not remember saying that. I do know that I certainly sympathized with him, and he might have interpreted it to be that. Senator BOND. Mr. Secretary, you were interviewed for the Treasury Department Inspector General's report on July 20th. Two days after you were interviewed, on July 22, the extensive search which you had directed apparently turned up documents reflecting your schedule that your office had just become aware of Those documents reflect that you had a meeting with Roger Altman and Jean Hanson on February 1, the day before the now infamous February 2 White House meeting, but the schedule also reflects that you had a meeting with Mr, Altman and Ms. Hanson on February 3rd, the day after the White House meeting. In your inter-view with the Inspector General, you recall the meeting on February 1st, and you recall discussing the statute of limitations in the Madison civil cases, but you did not recall being advised of the February 2nd meeting. There were no documents at the time reflecting that there had been a meeting two days afterwards, a meeting on February 3rd. With that information now available to you, thinking back when Roger Altman and Jean Hanson met with you on February 2, the day after Secretary BENTSEN. No, they met with me, I think, on February 1. Is that correct? Senator BOND. Well your notes from your office reflect that there was a meeting on February 3, as well. We have a copy of the redacted schedule which shows that there was a meeting on February 3. [Pause.] Pull that out. That shows that Mr. Altman and Ms. Hanson were on your schedule. Unfortunately, we are blessed with no shortage of paper work. This is the 1st, here is the 3rd.
August 3, 1994 - Part 7
(18:10:12) Senator ROTH. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that purportedly, the purpose of this memorandum was to determine when contacts with agencies by White House staff were to be banned. I did have a series of questions that I wanted to ask as to whether the contacts made by a number of White House personnel were within this .ban, but if I understand what you are saying, you are not that well acquainted with the memorandum to answer such questions; is ,that correct? Ms. NOLAN. Senator, I want to make clear, it's not the memorandum. It's applying the memorandum to the particular situation. If I were asked that question at the White House, I would do some -Tesearch. I would look at the question. And so Senator ROTH. But you do not know, if I understand your stateinent, as to whether or not this memorandum applies to RTC? Ms. NOLAN. It does not apply-it does not list the Resolution Trust Corporation as one of those agencies. That's correct. Senator ROTH. As I pointed out. But it does say that the list identiflied is only illustrative and so my question was whether or not the RTC, because of its adjudicative function, would be covered? 130 Senator DODD. Will my colleague yield on that one question? I think that may be stipulated. I'm not sure, but maybe if someone on the panel or someone on the staff here I don't believe that the RTC has, to use your words, an "adjudicative function." I may be wrong on that. Senator ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the witnesses that. That is what I am trying to determine. Senator SARBANES. That was a line of questioning of the Senator from Delaware. I think we'd better reserve it, Senator Roth, until your next round. We've already gone well over the time. There's a vote on, and we could recognize Senator Boxer and she could complete Senator ROTH. Could I just make one comment? Senator DODD. Could I make a parliamentary inquiry Mr. Chairman? Senator SARBANES. Certainly. Senator DODD, Is it a matter of fact that a function has an adjudicative function? That's not a debate. Senator ROTH. I would like to point out Senator SARBANES. I thought the question was put to Ms. Nolan and she gave a response to it on the basis of this memo; is that correct? Ms. NOLAN. My response, Senator, was that I could not answer that question without looking at the Resolution Trust Corporation's charter and understanding its functions, and I have not done that. Senator ROTH. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that this regulation covers agencies with investigative functions as well, but my time is up. The CHAIRMAN. We have a vote underway. I think what we'll do at this point, the bells are going to ring and Senator SARBANES. They have. The CHAIRMAN. I know. The second bells are going to ring, indicating that our time is very short on the roll call so I think what we'll do is take a brief recess for about 10, 12 minutes, It will give you folks a chance Senator DAMATO. There are two votes-there's a possibility, Mr. Chairman, of two votes, and so that might require us, and they would have--I don't think we'll be back for at least 20, 25 minutes just to let the witnesses know. The CHAIRMAN. Well, if there prove to be two votes, we'll alert the staff and they can tell you and then you can plan accordingly. As soon as we're free from voting on the Floor, we'll be back and we'll resume. The Committee stands in recess until the voting period ends. (18:14:04) [Recess.]
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Gordon C. Strachan, July 23, 1973
U.S. Senator Herman E. Talmadge (D-GA) mentions previous testimony from former White House aide Gordon C. Strachan that referred to his knowledge on the Donald H. Segretti matter. He asks what did Strachan know and when did he know it? Strachan says in June or July 1971, he and Deputy Assistant to the President Dwight Chapin began discussing the possible campaign need for a "Dick Tuck" type of capability. One mentioned the possibility of Segretti, who was someone they knew in college. Senator Talmadge asks what "Dick Tuck type of capability" refers to. Strachan describes someone who is a prankster or political jokester. Strachan notes that a late August 1971 meeting between Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, Deputy finance chairman and personal attorney to the President Herbert W. Kalmbach, and himself, in which Haldeman authorized Kalmbach to pay the salary and expenses of Segretti. Senator Talmadge asks why. Strachan replies it was to engage in "Dick Tuck type of activities." Strachan gives examples of Segretti going to a Ed Muskie rally and having a sign say, "This is Humphrey territory." Senator Talmadge asks if that was the worst of it. Laughter in the chamber. Strachan says more activities were planned, but none illegal. Mr. Tuck had reputation for being an ingenious individual and it was believed that Segretti possessed similar talents and skills. Senator Talmadge quips that to attend a rally of that type and claim it was someone else's territory with a sign seems like a waste of money. Strachan says the reason behind covering Segretti's expenses was for the purpose of having more than one sign at the rally.
August 3, 1994 - Part 2
(11:20:25) And I wonder if you would just share with us how you are going to follow this up? What are you going to do about this? Secretary BENTSEN, Well I think they are right on that. And I think there are things that we have to do. And I assume full responsibility as Secretary of the Treasury. I think, to have clear, distinct understanding when a person is wearing two hats, one is in this instance, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, and on the other hand, Chief Executive for the Resolution Trust, and you have different sets of rules and regulations in the two. Senator MACK. What would the rules of the Treasury have been under this circumstance? Secretary BENTSEN, Well you get into quite a plethora of rules insofar as responsibilities in the Treasury. I do not think I can give you the detail of it. I would be delighted to respond to it subsequently in the record, if you would like. Senator MACK. I think it would be helpful if Secretary BENTSEN. I would be happy to. Senator MACK [continuing]. If we could have some identification of what the rules of the Treasury would have provided with respect to this issue. Secretary BENTSEN. I would be happy to. The rules on when Treasury officials can discuss or confirm the details of a criminal referral are far from clear. That is why I have asked the Justice Department, OGE, and Treasury's own Inspector General to work with the Department in developing guidelines. Senator MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Shelby. Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bentsen, Senator Bentsen, I will always call him that, I guess. Mr. Secretary, we are glad to have you over here with us again. I would like to go back into a couple of things that have been disturbing to me and I think some others on the Committee. Let's talk about, for a minute, and see if I understand, that the Office of Inspector General's report here, this is the Inspector General of the Department of Treasury, is that correct? Secretary BENTSEN. That is correct. Senator SHELBY. This investigation I believe at your request or your Secretary BENTSEN. For the Office of Government Ethics, that was my request, and then, but they have no investigative Senator SHELBY. Let's go over it again. Secretary BENTSEN. But lot me make the point and answer your question. 28 But they have no investigative powers, so they called on the Inspector General for that purpose. Senator SHELBY. OK. In other words, the Inspector General was doing the investigation, part of it? You said he had to investigate Secretary BENTSEN. Doing the investigation and, based on that, the Office of Government Ethics. But the Office of Government Ethics points out those areas that they think are important in arriving at a judgment, and directs the IG. Senator SHELBY. Let me go over the sequence of events again briefly with you here. When was this report finished and disseminated to the public? Secretary BENTSEN. Well I think it was this-I do not have the exact date, but it has been in the very last few days. And what I did with that was to release it to the public, and I believe I am correct on this, and as I understand it, the White House came over and picked up a copy at that press conference. Senator SHELBY. Did you release some of the White House before you released it to the public? Secretary BENTSEN. I released to the White House sworn depositions that had been requested by Mr. Cutler, and Mr. Cutler had the authority to come over and interview the witnesses, but yet a time constraint here in trying to get ready to testify before the Congress. And the IG had felt that the White House had been very cooperative in responding to their deposing of witnesses there, and in turn, they felt that they should cooperate to give Mr. Cutler the kind of information he needed to prepare. Now I put a safeguard on that. Senator SHELBY. What was the safeguard? Secretary BENTSEN. As I said, first, I think Mr. Cutler is an excellent attorney, a man of integrity, who has an understanding of ethics and has served, with distinction, two Presidents, and I said, I want these depositions limited to your staff and not shared with the witnesses until this situation is further developed, and the reports, all of the reports are completed. Senator SHELBY. Were these depositions shared with Mr. Altman? Secretary BENTSEN. They were not shared with him until after, my understanding, all of the witnesses had been deposed.
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(12:15:10) 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 difficult especially for you, Mr. Steiner, becauseI look at you, I see the as exuberance of youth, the exaggeration of youth, and the loveliness 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. 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. (12:20:11) [Recess.] (12:20:13) Commentary of hearings hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG (12:21:43)(tape #10068 ends)
August 10, 1995 - Part 3
(13:05:40) Mr. NUSSBAUM. I haven't noticed that, Senator. Senator BENNETT. Asked her specifically, or it was asked of her, is the grilling the same kind that you've seen Mr. Chertoff give, and she said, yes, that's the kind of grilling I was getting from Bernie Nussbaum. That does not sound like someone who is happy to have found a note, sitting down with someone on the support staff, and grilling her in that specific fashion, as to what she may have seen, and asking the question repeatedly and going at it again and again. You've shown me you have the capacity to go after an issue again and again. We've seen some of that while you've been here too. I asked her the question, were people paranoid. Her answer to me was, I was not paranoid. Then I said, how about the others. And she responded, yes, the others were acting in a manner in which was paranoid. How can you come across to people as being 1372 paranoid and grilling and highly interrogatory when you're so happy that you've finally found the note? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I explained yesterday, Senator, and I'll not repeat the whole explanation because we engaged in this colloquy yesterday. I did not grill Ms. Gorham, certainly not in the manner that Mr. Chertoff grills people. I certainly did not do that. I did not grill Ms. Gorham like that. I asked the questions in a gentle manner. She was in deep shock, and if I tried to rouse her out of her shock, she may now consider that grilling. With respect to these allegations or these statements of paranoia, I think that does come from the fact that Deb Gorham and Linda Tripp, both of whom are very good people, as I said yesterday, felt somehow they were being excluded from something important that was going on in the White House Counsel's Office. That's my explanation, Senator. I was there. You weren't there. I was there, Senator BENNETT. No, I was not there. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I think my That's, I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I was there. There was no paranoia, there was no hysteria, we were trying to get the facts, with respect, surrounding the finding of the note. That's all we were trying to do and we were doing it in a professional manner. Senator BENNETT. Well, if I can just make one quick, final observation, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Nussbaum, you are very good, and you have an explanation for Deb Gorham's testimony, and an explanation for Ms. Tripp's testimony, and an explanation for the Park Police's testimony, and an explanation for Mr. Shelton's testimony, and every one of those explanations, taken by itself, is very good. I sit back and look at the totality of the thing and I come out exactly where I did yesterday. The White House Counsel's Office has a very smooth, complete description of everything that happened and everything was done properly and everything was done in the name of privilege, and there are high legal standards that directed everything we did. The picture that comes from everybody else that dealt with the White House Counsel is entirely different. And even though you have an explanation for each particular, the overall pattern still leaves me convinced that there was a tremendous amount of disarray, a tremendous amount of scrambling around, a tremendous, amount of improvising, and that things were not as smooth and polished and careful as you now tell the Committee they were. Mr. NUSSBAUM. They were not. I agree with part of what yousay. They were not smooth and polished and careful. I mean, there were bumps and there were mistakes. I didn't run a perfect operation. I was not a perfect White House Counsel and I did not act perfectly in this period. My basic point was not that everything was done precisely correct. My basic point was that I acted in accordance with my ethical obligations and with respect, as Mr. Chertoff alluded to this morn- ing, with respect to every big decision I had to make I made the correct decision, I made the right decisions, I made decisions that "I I look back at 2 ears later that I'm proud of That's all, I'm saying. 1373 The picture that some people paint, apparently, of paranoia or hysteria or stumbling around, that's an incorrect picture. Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr.Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator.
August 9, 1995 - Part 2
(11:25:43) Senator HATCH. Sure. Mr. NUSSBAUM. And with Presidents, it's good. It's desirable they have outside advisors, that they can look to people on the outside, not just the people in the White House. Susan was one of those people. I wasn't disclosing to her confident-Senator, could I just finish, please, Senator. Senator HATCH. Yes, go ahead. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I wasn't disclosing to her national security information or confidential information or privileged information. I was just telling her that a discussion had arisen in the White House as to a process, as to how something should be done. I didn't even discuss with her, I don't believe, exactly how it should be done. I just said to her The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nussbaum. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator, please The CHAIRMAN. If I might, I think one of the keys is did she initiate the conversation as it related to the methodology that was being considered for the search to be undertaken? That's what the Senator is getting at. Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, the Senator was talking about the conversation The CHAIRMAN. I'm interested in that and I think Senator HATCH. The point is did you tell her or did she tell you about these concerns? You say that she told you, That's all I want to establish. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator D'Amato, I'll answer your question and Senator Hatch's question. My memory is that she initiated the concern--she initiated discussion abouf whether or not there was a concern about a procedure. But to answer the Senator's question, I didn't think it was improper to talk to her about this because she was an outside advisor and I wasn't disclosing any confidential or national security information. criticizing you- Senator HATCH. That is not mMr. NUSSBAUM. I'll try not to be so combative, Senator. Id you en Ms. Thomases to Senator HATCH. You're doing fine. When I that people were concerned about the search of Mr. Foster 's office, did Ms. Thomases indicate which "people" were concerned? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No. Senator HATCH. Did she mention the President or the First Lady, for instance? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, she did not. Senator HATCH. Could Ms. Thomases have been in communication with the President or the First Lady? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Could she have? Absolutely she could have. Senator HATCH. It would not have surprised you if she had been? Mr. NUSSBAUM. It would not have surprise me if she had been. Senator HATCH. Did the President call You about the document review at any time? Mr. NUSSBAUM. He did not, Senator. Senator HATCH. Well, wouldn't it be odd for them to call Ms. Thomases, if they did, and not call you if that happened? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I don't know know if it happened. Senator HATCH. You don't know whether or not either of them called her? 1224 Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, I do not, Senator. Senator HATCH. Did you tell anybody about your contact with Ms. Thomases at all, in the White House or otherwise? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I may have. I just don't recall at this point. Senator HATCH. Did you tell Steve Neuwirth, for instance, your Associate Counsel? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I may have told Steve Neuwirth, yes. He was a senior person on my staff. It's quite possible I told him. Senator HATCH. Mr. Neuwirth, your Associate Counsel, whom' you brought to Washington with you from your firm of Wachtell, Lipton, has testified that you told him that Ms. Thomases and the' First Lady were concerned about law enforcement having unfettered access to the documents. Could we. put up that page-it's page 112 of the deposition--on the Elmo. Let me read lines 2 through 6. Question: What did Mr. Nussbaum tell you about the conversation that he had with Ms. Thomases? Answer. (by Mr. Neuwirth] While I don't remember his exact words in a very brief discussion, my understanding was that Mr. Nussbaum felt that Ms. Thomases and the First Lady may have been concerned about anyone having unfettered access to Mr. Poster's office. Did you say that to Mr. Nussbaum or you just can't recall? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Neuwirth. Senator HATCH. Mr. Neuwirth, excuse me. Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, I have no memory of saying that to Mr. Neuwirth, but as I said in my statement, Senator, I always assumed that the First Lady, like any good lawyer in the White House , would not believe unfettered access to a lawyer's office was proper, but I have no memory of saying that to Mr. Neuwirth. Senator HATCH. You do not have any reason to disbelieve Mr. Neuwirth's assertion there? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Absolutely not. That is correct, Senator Hatch. Senator HATCH. Did you talk to the President or the First Lady on either July 21 or July 22? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, I didn't-did I talk to them on either of those days? Senator HATCH. Well, about this? Mr. NUSSBAUM. About this, no. Senator HATCH. At this time, Linda Tripp was Executive Assistant to the Counsel to the President. In other words, she was your principal assistant or office manager, is that a fair characterization? Mr. NUSSBAUM. She was one of my senior secretaries is the more accurate way of Senator HATCH. She's testified before the Committee that she remembers you receiving a phone call from the First Lady during this time, and that's on page 23 of the transcript from her appearance before the Committee. Maybe we could place that up on the Elmo and let me just read the following from that. Question: What about the First Lady, do you have a recollection of her having a telephone conversation with Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. TRIPP. I don't have a clear recollection of the First Lady speaking to him during that time frame. Question: Do you have some kind of a recollection of it? 1225 Ms. TRIPP. I know at one point there was a telephone conversation between Mr. Nussbaum and Mrs. Clinton. I don't recall when that was.
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(19:40:43) MS. HANSON. Sir I disagree that it dominated it for the entire day. It certainly did not. Mr, Altman--Mr. Altman's prepared ques- 140 tion and answer only related to his contacts, and that's what he re-sponded to. His prepared answer didn't relate to contacts by everyone else on the staff. He was not prepared to answer that. In fact, as I sat there and listened to your question, I realized that he was responding only with respect to his contacts, because that was what his prepared response was. I didn't realize, in prepa- ration for the oversight board hearing, that the Committee would want information -with detail on every single contact between anyone in the White House and anyone in Treasury on any-no matter bow trivial or insignificant. If that was what was-if that is what the Committee wanted, that answer was not prepared, and would have had to have been' prepared in response to reviewing the transcript and the follow--up questions. The CHAiRmAN. Senator Gramm, excuse me, just for a minute'. because we're well over and I want to give you all the time you, need, as I said I would. But, I think we do have to rotate within the general bounds Senator GRAMM. Could I make one final point? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, of course. The witness has asked if she could have a brief pause and I think she's entitled to one. Then' we'll continue. Why don't you go ahead and make your last point, then we'll recess for 5 minutes or so. Senator GRAmm. I'm not trying to badger. I'm trying to get the facts. But I don't think you can say-and I want to go back and look at this 54- page briefing paper to see what, actually, he had been prepared to answer, and we can do that while we're on our recess-but I don't think you can expect us to accept the assertions' as to why he didn't answer our questions. In light of the questions' that we asked, what he said was not true, but we cannot be expected to accept that he was answering different questions than the ones we were asking. I mean Ms. HANsON. That's not what I've testified, sir. What I've said, is Chat he responded to a part of your question. He was not prepared to respond to all of your question, because your question was much broader than his prepared response was and, frankly, based on what you're saying now, what I even would have prepared for him Senator GRAmm. But he knew about these conversations Ms. HANSON. ---or what everyone else prepared for him. Senator GRAmm. He was part of them. Why did he have to be prepared for that? The CHAIRMAN. Why don't we do this. We're going to continue a long as we need to. The witness has indicated that she would like a brief pause, and we'll take a 5-minute pause here. When we re- sume, Senator Sarbanes. will start on our side, and we'll continue., Why don't we recess for 5 minutes and then we'll resume. (19:44:02) [Recess.] (19:44:05) Commentary of hearings hosts NINA TOTENBERG and KEN BODE from tv studio
Senate Republican Conference Announcement
U.S. Senator Howard Baker (R-TN) standing next to Sen. Robert Packwood (R-OR) in the old Senate Chamber responds: "Let me add one thing to that. It relates to all the other questions in a way, and I should have said in my opening remarks. I've seen a number of Republican conferences since I've been here, and I've never seen one in which the spirit of cooperation was greater than it is in this one. There's absolutely no divisiveness. There was no conflict. There was nothing except honest competition for the offices involved, and I think the spirit of enthusiasm and optimism that has pervaded the Republican Party since the election, was carried into this conference to a remarkable degree. And I intend, the extent I am capable of it, to see that that continues far into the future, and indeed, for the entire next session of Congress". Senator Jake Garn (R-UT) standing in the background next to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), steps forward and interjects: "Howard, if I could just add one note on the question asked on Senator Packwood and all this; just add one word on Senator Packwood's election, and these questions about liberal versus conservative. I would just add that I nominated Senator Packwood for the office". Sen. Garn retreats back behind Sen. Baker as an adult female reporter (off camera) asks Sen. Baker: "You've got all your leadership in place. Your Senators are here. You know what the committee is going to look like. What can we expect is going to be different from those Democrats who have been running this place for the past twenty-six years?" Sen. Baker responds: "Oh, I think that it would take too long for me to describe for you the things I have in mind. But, let me give you a few general outlines. To begin with, this Republican majority in the Senate will move diligently to move a Republican program through the Senate and through the Congress, which necessarily means there will be a high level of cooperation and coordination with the new Republican Presidential administration. I intend to try to help Ronald Reagan perform on the commitments he made during the campaign, and the programs that he will propose in the course of this Congress. The first change, then, I believe, will be a high level of cooperation and good will between a Republican Senate and a Republican White House. That has not existed since 1954. Second thing is, I intend to try, to the extent my colleagues will permit it, to change the way the Congress operates, the Senate operates. I think we got too far away from the idea that the Senate is a forum, a public forum, for the disposition of important issues. I hope that we can regularize the proceedings of the Senate, so that a part of the day is devoted to committee activity, a part to constituent services, and a part to our activities on the floor. I hope we can get away from the time when you come to the Senate galleries and see that only one, or two, or three people are there. I'd like to see us restore the nature of the Senate as great debating institution".
President Carter's 2nd News Conference
MS President JIMMY CARTER entering east wing press room to make a brief statement. Jimmy Carter: Good afternoon, everybody. I would like to make a very brief statement as a progress report to the American people on some items that are important to us. We have submitted and the Congress is now considering legislation to give me the authority to reorganize the executive branch of government. The Senate committee under Senator Ribicoff has now completed their hearings and they will be marking up the bill beginning tomorrow. The House Committee on Government Operations, under Congressman Jack Brooks, has scheduled hearings to begin on March 1. So, because of the interest of the American people and the Congress and myself in completing this very crucial project, I think the Congress is moving with great expedition to give me that authority. We've also initiated with directions to the members of the Cabinet and other agency heads a new program to cut down on the extremely great overload of paperwork with a requirement that those who prepare Government regulations, who are responsible for the preparation, sign them. I've asked my Cabinet officers to read the regulations that are forthcoming from their departments each week until they see the volume and the complexity of them. And we hope to eliminate unnecessary regulations, abbreviate those that are necessary and express them in a language so that we can all understand them. I've also asked major elements of our society, the university professors and the State officials, in this last week to give me their suggestions on how the regulations might be improved. We've done the same thing with reports required by the Federal Government. And I hope to reduce drastically the number of reports, the frequency of those reports and the complexity of them. We will complete the proposed legislation on creating a new Department of Energy this week. The proposed legislation is now on my desk. It will be submitted to the Congress for action the first of next week. And we've consulted very closely with the key leaders in the Congress. And I believe there is going to be a rapid creation of this new department and a heavy emphasis on the importance of energy questions to our people. We will also present to the American people, probably at a joint session of the Congress speech by me, about April the 20th, a comprehensive energy policy which will involve all the complexities of the energy question, that's something that's long overdue, and it's going to be quite profound on its impact on the American consciousness and our society. And I hope it will be comprehensive enough so that it can be well-balanced and fair to all. We are quite concerned about the pressures of inflation. The advisers to me on economics are trying to assess all Government programs and private actions that contribute to inflationary pressures. When this analysis is done, I will use every means that I have available to me to express these concerns and possibly corrective actions to the American people as well. And the last point is that we will have a complete analysis underway now on deregulation. And the first question is the deregulation of the airlines. Legislation is in the Congress now. We will be submitting a message to Congress very shortly on that subject. We will not submit administration legislation because the Congress has already moved substantially forward in dealing with this important issue.
August 4, 1994 - Part 7
(15:50:20) I am not an expert on such issues, and I think I expressed my view that this did not appear to me to necessitate his recusal. Others present expressed similar views. But we certainly conveyed to Mr. Altman that the decision was entirely up to him. At the close of the meeting, Mr. Altman indicated that he would further consider the issue and let us know what he had decided. Within a day or two, he informed me that he had decided not to recuse himself. At all times, I viewed the February 2nd meeting as wholly appropriate. Mr. Altman initiated the meeting. There were Counsels 356 present from both the Treasury Department and the White House, who never suggested that there was anything inappropriate or improper about the meeting. The expiration of the statute of limitations with respect to Madison was a matter of public debate. While opinions were expressed on the recusal issue, the bottom line is that the decision was Mr. Altman's to make. Under these circumstances, I believe the meeting comported with all applicable ethical and legal standards. Independent Counsel Robert Fiske, a Republican, has found that no laws were violated by this meeting, and White House Special Counsel Lloyd Cutler, as well as the Office of Government Ethics have confirmed that this meeting violated no ethical standards. Following the events of early February, to the best of my recollec. tion, the next time I had a discussion with Mr. Altman concerning these matters was on February 23rd, the evening before he testified before the Senate Banking Committee. I don't recall the specifics of the conversation but generally, but generally I recall Mr. Altman informing me that he was considering either before or as part of his testimony announcing his recusal from the Madison matter , and he wanted to know if I had any thoughts on that. I believe I asked him whether any circumstances had changed since early February that would cause him to change his prior decision not to recuse. I recall him saying they had not, And I recall telling him that it would be entirely up to him, but if I had any other thoughts, I would get back to him. He asked me to call him later that evening, after he returned from an event outside of his office. Rather than wait, I phoned Josh Steiner a short while after my conversation with Mr. r. Altman. I repeated what I discussed with Mr. Altman and asked Mr. Steiner to convey to Mr. Altman that I had no further thoughts on the subject and that it was entirely up to him whether to announce recusal the next day. During his testimony on the 24th of February, Mr. Altman did not say he was going to recuse himself from the Madison matter. As you may recall, the news accounts the day after Mr. Altman's testimony focused on his statement at the hearing that he had met with White House officials in early February to discuss the statute of limitations with respect to Madison. As a result, the White House was getting a number of press inquiries about the issue of contacts with Mr. Altman, as well as the fact that he had not recused himself, despite congressional demands to do so. And we were attempting to respond to those inquiries. At some point during the afternoon of February 25, George Stephanopoulos informed me that he had heard that Mr. Altman had recused himself from the Madison matter, and that he had done so in the course of a conversation with the editorial page editor of The New York Times, without notifying the White House in advance of his decision. Mr. Stephanopoulos and I called Mr. Altman immediately to confirm if that were true. Mr. Altman confirmed these events, and we expressed surprise that he had chosen to announce his recusal to a newspaper editor. We had simply been', caught off guard, especially since we had been fielding questions, from the press on these issues. 357 I am aware that Mr. Steiner's diary reflects that we indicated to Mr. Altman that the President was "furious" about these events. As far as I know, Mr. Steiner was not a party to that phone call, and I do not recall making any such statement. Moreover, I would not have any basis for making such statement because I had not spoken with the President between the time I learned that Mr. Altman had recused himself and the time when Mr. Stephanopoulos and I called Mr. Altman. In closing, I should also add at some point in time I recall briefly informing the President and Mrs. Clinton in separate conversations of the gist of the discussion at the February 2nd meeting. And that Mr. Altman had shortly thereafter decided not to recuse himself. I speak with the President and the First Lady several times a week about a number of matters, and I cannot recall the specifics about neither nor did these conversations or when they took place. I recall that of them had any particular reaction to the information; they ask me to take any action with respect to the recusal issue.
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(23:55:17) That means, Senator, with all respect, that Mr. Altman and his ethics advisor believed that acting in this manner would not raise an appearance of partiality within the meanings of the relevant ethical standards because if, in fact, he made such a judgment, and his ethics advisor made such a judgment then he couldn't come and tell me that he and his ethics advisor believe that there is no ethical or legal reason for him to recuse himself What he said to me, Senator Bennett, is that he talked to Secretary Bentsen and he talked to Ms. Hanson and he thought it was best, what he was conveying to me is not this appearance issue that you refer to. What he was conveying to me that he thought it was politically best, public relations best, that he didn't really want to take the heat. He didn't want us to take the heat. That's what he was saying to me, And that is what I think is wrong. If he made a determination that there was an appearance issue here, then he would have been legally or ethically required to recuse himself, but he did not make such a determination. And this notion about Mr. Altman being a long-time friend of the President, a close personal friend, which is sort of gaining currency 493 here, is also, I believe, incorrect, sir. Mr. Altman went to college with the President 25 years ago. I don't think they were in the same class in college. I don't believe Mr. Altman saw the President between 1968 and 1991, until the President started running for ofIt is true that Mr. Altman was a high Government official in the Administration. That's true, but that doesn't mean he's pre cluded from doing his duty and indeed even if he was a close per- sonal friend of the President's, which I don't believe he is, a close personal friendship is not, under the ethics rules, a covered relationship that requires you to recuse yourself. There were no facts that I knew, and no law that I knew that would in any way indicate that Mr. Altman was wrong when he told me that he was not legally or ethically required to recuse himself. What Mr. Altman was taking was in my view an unprincipled position here, A position contrary to what I believe should be the proper policy for the Executive Branch, Now I know that a lot of people don't agree with me on this thing. Lloyd Cutler doesn't agree with me. Lloyd Bentsen doesn't agree with me. Ms. Hanson doesn't agree with me. You don't agree with me. Chairman Riegle doesn't agree with me, A lot of people don't agree. I lose a vote in :this Committee at this time. But I believe I'm right in this thing. Senator BENNETT, Obviously you do and I won't beat the dead horse any more. I'll simply say for all of my earlier statements of admiration for you which I do not back away from, I will not consult you if I ever get in a circumstance where I need advice on this issue. Thank you. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Maybe I'm not the most politically astute person in the world, Senator Bennett, except I happen to believe the best politics is to do your duty, to stand. up for what's right and when people come at you and attack as they will, political opponents or newspapers, you explain yourself, you defend your position. To me that is the best politics also, but a lot of people don't agree with me about that either, The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shelby, Senator SHELBY. Thank you. Mr. Nussbaum, you obviously-I never met you until tonight that I recall. I knew what you were doing at the White House as the Counsel, as White House Counsel, is that the proper term? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. White House Counsel. You are obviously a man of strong opinions and there is nothing wrong with that. Strong personality. I would contrast you in my own mind with Mr. Altman sitting there and so forth. But I've got some problems and I want to follow up with something and I disagree with you on this, too, and I was going to ask a similar question that Senator Bennett got into, On page 13 and I had circled this earlier and I'm going to go back into it. "Or will result"-talking about conduct-- "or will result in an appearance of conflict significantly detrimental to the public's"-"to the public's legitimate perception of the fairness of governmental process." Well, that's what a lot of that was about, what is the perception of this. Mr. Altman, I believe, was on the right track, but he's not as strong as you are as far as personality. Why does he come to 494 the White House? Obviously a lot of trails led right to you you know, you were the Counsel to-White House Counsel. He Was down there and he was asking you about this. The diary here of Mr. Steiner and I think it's instructive now in a lot-to a large de- gree, and I can imagine just in my own mind and I think other peo- ple could seeing you tonight, seeing your demeanor as-you're' a trial lawyer and we do this, we carry our own common sense into
August 3, 1994 - Part 6
(17:35:38) Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, let me try. You've raised a number of different issues. Let me see if I can touch on each of them. 120 My sense of this when I say that it was a-let me start this way. I did not think, I'm only one person who talked to Mr. Nussbaum, but I did not think that Mr. Nussbaum intended to affect the out. come of whatever it was that the RTC was going to decide. I never had that feeling. He had a personal problem with Ellen Kulka. She's been described as tough. It is fair to say that he thought that she was unreasonably tough. I don't know how much this Committee knows about the Kaye, Scholer matter, but from Mr. Nussbaum's perspective and from the perspective of most of the Bar that practiced against the OTS and the RTC, the decisions involving that law firm were all but extor. tion, that the OTS had all but shut down the law firm. In order to extort $40 million out of the law firm. That was the perception, and that this Committee will probably remember, I can't remember whether there were hearings after that or not. But there were certainly sort of seminars all around the country. He thought she was unreasonably tough. He had-my sense of this is that he had a personal problem with Ellen Kulka. I did not particularly think-and you can ask him and ask others-I did not particularly think that anybody else in the White House shared that. She was his opponent in a very bitter litigation. Very bitter litigation. And I think that he had a bitter reaction to her arising out of litigation. It was personal, but I think it was personal to Bernie Nussbaum. I do not think-I didn't hear anybody else in the White House say anything about Ellen Kulka or particularly care about Ellen Kulka- This, to me-and again, you'll talk to others, I can just give you my perception, this was a Bernie Nussbaum issue arising out of a litigation that he had had. I did not think that he had intended to affect the outcome. He had a real problem with her because he thought her judgment was bad in that particular matter. I do not think and I did not think that he thought somehow that by having- I did not think that he thought that the outcome would be different if Mr. Altman remained in his position. And I think that's true for a number of different reasons. One is that Mr. Altman said it. The second is that it's pretty clear to anybody in Washington and I think it was clear to me, at least at the time, if Mr. Altman had done anything whatsoever, anything whatsoever to interfere with the decision that Mr. Ryan and Ms. Kulka made, I think Ms. Kulka told you she wouldn't be at the RTC anymore. And I think we can imagine that she would do more than slip quietly into the night . I thought as a practical matter this "de facto recusal"--this was real, this was real even if Mr. Altman didn't want to do it, But I did not think that Mr. Nussbaum thought that there was going to be alteration in the outcome as a result of it. That was-that's just my perception at the time. You're going to ask others. The CHAIRMAN. Well, you know this is pregant for follow-up, but we're so far over the time I'm reluctant to do that. If we do-- Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I'll even give up some of my next,: time or something. Could I just have the privilege of making a 30- second comment? The CHAIRMAN. Let me inquire on this side. Senator BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I intend to follow this up as well, but I would be delighted to have. 121 Senator KERRY. Just a follow-up. Senator DAMATO. By the way, if I might make an observation, Mr. Chairman. It is moments like these that I think are important and I understand why the Chair ruled that we should give 10 minutes to our colleagues, the latitude to pursue a line of questioning. And I'm happy to yield to the gentleman. Senator KERRY. I don't want to play by any special rules, Senator DAMATO. I don't think it's a special rule. I think it's comity and I'm delighted. Senator KERRY- Let me say in fairness, and I say to my colleagues, I think the answer is a very important answer and a legitimate answer, but I'm even surprised that there isn't more statement. I think my colleagues have to be fair to understand that the White House was operating with the perception of an RTC that had already leaked and they had a perception of conceivable abuse here. In addition, there was a process of a demand for recusals going on that had no basis on legality or ethical standards. And so I think we have to really understand the dynamics and the full flavor of what was happening. And I simply want to say I think that when you do you begin to understand this a little bit better in fairness to what happened. eThe CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Eggleston, you wanted to add a point and I'll let you do that.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:00:46) Ms. HANSoN. Actually, sir, it didn't. That letter was written for a specific purpose, to let the Committee know that there was going to be a newspaper article, that appeared the following day, that talked about the two fall contacts. That's why the letter was written. It was not written with any intention of clarifying or supplementing the record completely. It required looking at the transcript and doing Senator GRAMM, You're saying be would not have written this letter had the article not been coming out the next day that contradicted his testimony? Ms. HANsON. I have testified that what we expected to happen was to get a cop copy of the transcript, review that copy of the transcript, and supplement it as was necessary. We were waiting for written questions. We bad been told that we would receive many written questions, and we intended that to be completed in an orderly, thorough, professional process. Senator GRAMM. Didn't you review the videotape the next day? Ms. HANSON. I did not. The CHAMMAN. Did Mr. Foreman say that she had? Senator GRAmm. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Apparently, there is-someone had indicated that their belief was that you had viewed it, but your testimony here, today, is you did not view the videotape after the hearing? Ms. HANsON. No. It's my recollection that Mr. Foreman taped that video--made that videotape over the weekend, because the hearing was played on Saturday night, and I believe be's just mistaken. I was doing other things on the day after that Friday, and Wouldn't have had 41/2 hours to watch it. The CHAMMAN. Did you then see it at some later time? MS. HANSON, I did not. Senator GRAMM. Let me go back to my point, I think what we're all trying to get at here is, you, in essence, have said that you knew during Mr. Altman's testimony, that there had been more than one meeting You knew there had been more than one subject that had been discussed. You knew that with certainty, but it didn 't matter because you were going to have an opportunity-Mr. Altman was going to have an opportunity to go back and clarify it. Mr. Altman had an opportunity to clarify in the letter he wrote and did not. He had an opportunity on March 3, 1994, in another letter he wrote, but didn't clarify, and he bad another opportunity in another letter he wrote on March 11, 1994. At what point are you accountable for what you, say? Do we take this position that, come before the Committee, say anything you want to say 130 something that is verifiably false and, then, you can send the committee three letters without ever going back and saying, " wrong"? If, at some point in the future, you come back and, a clarify the record, then is it all well and good? Can you say when you were asked the question and provided answers that were wrong on the two points you made, first, that there bad been only,,,; one substantive contact and, again, repeated in a follow-up ques- tion from Senator Domenici. that there had been only one contact? We now know there may have been 20 or 40 contacts. Second, Mr. Altman volunteered, himself, that there had only been one subject matter discussed, and he didn't mention recusal at all. Are you really saying that none of that mattered, three letters, a clear and reiterated testimony, because you could still later send another let.' ter to strike it all out? Ms. HANsON. Sir, thats not what I've said. That's not at all what I've said. What I've said, is that it required getting the testimony and looking at it. Before I had the opportunity to look at the testimony, Grand Jury subpoenas were served. I never had the opportunity to complete the process and review the transcript. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm, I'm going to give you the time you need, although the time has expired and I should rotate now, but Senator GRAMM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN, -you're not going to be foreclosed from further RTC questions if you have them. Senator GRAMM. I have here-and correct me if I'm wrong-and this is the testimony-that the White House had the testimony on March 1, 1994. Maybe you ought to pass this up as well. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm, what I've got to do, because the time has run well over, I think, is rotate and then come back to your side. Senator Kerry.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Gordon C. Strachan, July 23, 1973
U.S. Senator Howard Baker (R-TN) asks if Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman made any statement to the grand jury, that former White House aide Gordon C. Strachan is aware of, about the sums of money or even whether Mr. Haldeman discussed either sum of money with Strachan. Senator Baker wants to know what was told to the grand jury about the amount of money involved and whether or not there was $22,000 returned to this fund. He sees too many discrepancies in the amount spent or returned. Senator Baker asks Strachan whether or not he can state with certainty that the money was returned. Strachan says he cannot. Baker asks if Strachan told Haldeman and the grand jury the same thing. Strachan states he did. Senator Baker asks if Strachan has any information of anyone skimming. Strachan says he knows he did not get any money, nor does he know if anyone else did. Senator Baker asks Strachan to clarify. Strachan: "The answer is I don't know whether anybody got any money or not." Senator Baker asks if Strachan had any suspicion that someone did receive illegal money. Strachan says there is confusion about the figures, which indicates some suspicion, but he has no direct knowledge. Senator Baker asks if Strachan can provide any leads for the panel to pursue on the topic of skimming. Strachan has no ideas other than the people mentioned in connection with the money. Senator Baker, noticing another vote signal on the clock, asks whether or not Strachan would be agreeable to talk about this matter at a later date. Strachan agrees.
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(19:50:30) Mr. PODESTA, I think he thought that the record ought to be corrected on the point. Senator SHELBY, Didn't you get involved in this, sort of handling this crisis? Mr. PODESTA. Well Senator SHELBY. You were the point man, weren't you, at the White House? Mr. PODESTA. I understand he described me that way. Senator SHELBY. Sir? Mr. PODESTA. I understand he described me that way, but let me try to explain it. Senator SHELBY, I won't call you the point man. You were the man Mr. PODESTA. Mr. Eggleston who works in the Counsel's Office who works with Mr. Nussbaum contacted Mr. Nussbaum, I believe, over the weekend. We wanted to see a transcript. We got a transcript. I believe we got the transcript on Monday, and I wanted to confer with Mr. Nussbaum on the matter. He had been at the meeting on February 2nd, and he was the Counsel. I believe the Counsel's Office staff conferred on Monday, the 28th. I got back together with him on the Ist, and we went through this in some detail. We had a meeting that lasted a couple hours. Senator SHELBY. You had a meeting to go through the transcript. Mr. PODESTA. On March Ist, which was a Tuesday. Senator SHELBY. What was your feeling after going through the transcript? You knew there was a lot of damage done there, didn't you? Mr. PODESTA. I think we had 428 Senator SHELBY. A problem on your hand. Mr. PODESTA. A problem. Senator SHELBY. What did you do then? Mr. PODESTA. I called Mr. Altman. Senator SHELBY. And what did you say to him? Mr. PODESTA, 1 raised the three issues Senator SHELBY. Did you say you've got a big problem or what? Mr. PODESTA. Well, I don't want to be repetitive-I've testified to this in great detail, but I think there were three points. On one point, with regard to who was at the meeting, I thought there Was no problem after discussing it with Mr. Altman. On the second point, on recusal, I thought it was his decision, but that it was best to correct the record. On the third point, which was the meetings point, the fall meetings, as I said, I've described a rather truncated conversation, but I think I made it clear to him that we thought something needed to be done on that. Senator SHELBY. You said it was a real problem, not just on recusal but the failure to disclose the meeting Mr. PODESTA. At the time I thought, in fact, that was the more substantial problem. Senator SHELBY. And who else thought that besides Mr. Eggleston? I know you weren't acting alone down there? You had some good minds there. Mr. PODESTA. I think what I went back to Mr. Altman with was the consensus, at least at the meeting, although it's conceivable that different people kind of rank these things slightly differently. I don't know. Senator SHELBY. Were any of the other people at the table with you tonight, were they involved in trying to- Mr. PODESTA. Mr. Lindsey. Senator SHELBY. Correct it? Mr. Lindsey. Mr. Bruce Lindsey. What was Mr. Altman-what did he have to say when you told him there was a problem here and this had to be corrected? What did he say? What did he say to you? Mr. PODESTA. I described, on the first point, I think we both concluded that he didn't need to correct it. Senator SHELBY. Not what we concluded. What he said. Mr. PODESTA. I think he said that he thought the testimony was fair on who set up the meeting. Senator SHELBY. He felt the testimony was fair that he had given before the Banking Committee? He said that? Mr. PODESTA. On the single point of who set up the meeting. Senator SHELBY. OK. Mr. PODESTA. How the meeting was set up is probably a better way to put it. On recusal he said he was going to continue to consider it. It had been raised and that he would continue to look at that issue, that it was a topic that he would consider. On the meetings point Senator SHELBY. The meetings, that's right. Mr. PODESTA. On the fall meetings point, as I said, in my pre- vious testimony, I think that he didn't want to get into the details with me. I thought that was appropriate at the time. I still think it's appropriate. you? Senator SHELBY. Was he acting cavalier over, the phone to 429 Mr. PODESTA. No, he was not. Senator SHELBY. Was this face to face? Mr. PODESTA. No, it was over the phone. Senator SHELBY. How long was it from the time you talked with him until he wrote the first letter trying to supplement the record? Mr. PODESTA, It was the next day. Senator SHELBY, And then how many days until the next letter? Mr. PODESTA. I believe one day. Senator SHELBY. One day. Mr. PODESTA. One more day. Senator SHELBY. And what about the next day? Mr. PODESTA. The third letter was on the 11th, I think. Senator SHELBY. Was Mr. Altman dribbling this information out to the Committee to supplement his testimony as pressure mounted on him through the news media and through the White House, that you all knew he had not told the whole truth and nothing but the truth to this Banking Oversight Committee and the pressure was mounting on him so he was dribbling it out as the pressure demanded? Mr. PODESTA. I want to answer that in two parts. My impression in the phone conversation was that Mr. Altman on the meetings point and on recusal point thought he had done his best and had no knowledge of the meetings when he said that on the 24th. That was my impression.
LAWMAKERS
20.08.54-DUKE-House did endorse MX, but only by 13 votes. Senate MX DEBATE is being FILIBUSTERED by DEMOCRATS. ROBERTS-REAGAN'S appointment of KISSINGER to the CENTRAL AMERICA commission worries even REPUBLICANS it might be a political blunder. Intro report on REAGAN replacing leadership of CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION. WERTHEIMER-CIVIL RIGHTS advocates suspect that REAGAN wants to replace commissioners who have criticized his CIVIL RIGHTS record. 20.10.09-c/s CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSIONER MARY FRANCES BERRY, says she never would have accepted appointment if she knew that she would be fired for dissenting from the REAGAN line. C/S RALPH NEAS, a Civil Rights advocate, says REAGAN'S policies are threatening the independence of CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION. C/S REAGAN speaking, advocating the qualifications of his candidates for the commission. M/S of REAGAN'S past nominees to commission at confirmation hearing. C/S Sen. HOWARD METZENBAUM, says the issue is not the "qualifications" of the nominees, but the independence of the commission. C/S Sen. JOSEPH BIDEN, says that REAGAN'S actions have tainted the nominations and the commission. C/S Sen. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), arguing the independence of the commission is being weakened by REAGAN. 20.12.29-C/S BOB DOLE in committee, says Black and Hispanic groups have taken a knee-jerk reaction to all of REAGAN'S actions and doubt the President's sincerity regardless of the facts. C/S ORRIN HATCH, says it's ridiculous to have lifetime nominations to the CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION and to say that a President can never change the commission. C/S a nominee JOHN BUNZEL gives the standard "color-blind society" argument, implying that AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is responsible for holding back racial equality. C/S nominee MORRIS ABRAM giving the same line. WERTHEIMER v.o.-DEMOCRATS did manage to win a delay of the confirmation, because REPUBLICANS are wary of bad political baggage due to REAGAN'S CIVIL RIGHTS RECORD. 20.14.24-c/s NEAS, says he's never seen an administration as inept and self-defeating on CIVIL RIGHTS as REAGAN's, due to not listening to moderate elements. C/S MARY FRANCES BERRY, says it's an important "litmus test" of Senator's CIVIL RIGHTS priorities. Says that REAGAN ADMINISTRATION is out of touch with the realities that discrimination continues against minorities and women.