Advanced Search
August 2, 1994 - Part 11
(01:20:19) Senator SARBANES. So when was the meeting set up with Mr. McLarty? Mr. ALTMAN. I believe it was the day before. senator SARBANES. And you set that up by calling him and talkin with him? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator SARBANES. And at that time your intention was to talk about the procedural aspects on this Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. That's what I told him. Senator SARBANES. The talking points, I'm just trying to be clear because we get a lot of staff work too. I take it these were prepared and given to you as you were going off to the meeting. It wasn't Mr. ALTMAN. Essential] es, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Could I follow up on that? I've not taken a turn for a while here. Senator SARBANES. I'm happy to give you time, The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for yielding. Do you recall whether or not the briefing sheet was something that Ms. Hanson or anybody else reviewed with you before you went over to the meeting?. Mr. ALTMAN. I don't believe so. I think I saw it as I left the office or on the way over. That's my best recollection. The CHAIRMAN. But you would have bad it, I assume. Did you have it with you? Mr. ALTMAN. When I arrived at the meeting? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, Senator, I did. The CHAIRMAN. On this question you just stated a minute ago that the day before you were still up in the air on the recusal, you'd stopped in to see Secretary Bentsen to get his advice. I take it that sometime then, in a sense, between that meeting and the meeting in the White House on the 2nd, you actually had come to a judg- ment that you were going to go ahead and recuse ourself. And yourself when you got into the meeting you gave that indication and that's when Mr. Vussbaum reacted vigorously to the contrary; is thatdo I have that right? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. So sometime then in that 24-hour period you made the decision to go ahead and recuse yourself Now, when you were here before us, in the exchanges that we looked at on television and talked about here today, why don't you just take a look at page 63, if you have it there, of the Committee record, This gets into the exchange. This is Senator D'Amato asking this question at the top of page 63. And he says, and I' just going to read here, "I have to say to Mr. Altman that I would like to go back to a question that Senator Gramm brought up as it relates to any meetings with White House Staff or Counsel." Mr. Altman, I think you said that you and an official from Treasury sought out Mr. Nussbaum; is that correct? "Yes, I did." I assume this refers to the February 2 meeting. Then Senator D'Amato says , "Could you tell us why? In other words, I have difficulty understanding why it is you felt compelled to seek out the White House Counsel. You start to respond, you say "solely to insure," and then Senator D'Amato stops you there and says, "solely to" with a question mark. Then you respond "solely to be sure that he understood the legal and procedural framework within which the RTC was working. And then you go ahead and elaborate on this question of that procedural framework. Now someone could read and infer from that when you say, "solely to be sure," that that may have addressed what your initial purpose was, but sometime in the 24-hour period before that meeting, you reached the decision to recuse yourself and you raised that in the meeting and having raised it in a meeting, I think one could ask why wouldn't that then have been mentioned here? In other words this is after the fact, you are reviewing the meeting, I think it's fair to say you could be expected to have a recollection of it because there was this tension about the issue. Mr. Nussbaum, you know, reacts strongly to it and then, in fact, having reached that judgment you decide over the next 24 hours basically not to go ahead with the recusal and to put that issue, in a formal sense, in abeyance for about the next- oh, 21/2 weeks or so. So couldn't someone draw the conclusion here that that answer here, "solely to be sure," that he understood now coming after the fact, would look as if you were leaving out mention of the recusal study. I mean "solely" makes it sound as if that was all that was talked about and obviously it wasn't, so one way or another I think we' we've got to clear something like that up here.
August 4, 1994 - Part 1
(09:25:29) The meeting was placed on my calendar by my assistant. She noted in the entry that the Office of the Chief of Staff wanted me to attend a meeting regarding the statute of limitations. This was the only information I had about the meeting prior to joining it. I had no discussions with Mr. Altman about the issue raised at the meeting prior to the meeting, nor did I have any contact with anyone at the Treasury Department concerning the subject of this meeting prior to it being held. I joined the February 2nd meeting in progress. Mr. Altman, with whom I had had previous contacts, as a member of the Administration's health care team, was speaking to the assembled group. As I recall, Mr. Altman was explaining a process by which the Resolution Trust Corporation staff would present to Mr. Altman a recommendation as to whether or not to seek a waiver of the statute of limitations from the President and Mrs. Clinton in connection with the RTC's investigation of an Arkansas bank. The significance of this for my office was that if and when a waiver were sought, it was sure to generate a new wave of press inquiries, to which my office, in conjunction with the rest of the White House, should be ready to respond. Mr. Altman went on to explain that he might not be the official to whom his waiver issue would be presented. In this context, he raised the issue of recusal from the process he was describing. He then explained that if he recused himself, a member of the RTC staff would make the final decision. He also stated that, in any case, if he did not recuse himself, he intended to follow the RTC staff recommendation, whatever it might be. I took him to mean that he did not see any need to overrule the RTC staff and that they would decide the proper way to discharge their duties. I then expressed my personal reaction to what Mr. Altman had said, questioning why he would recuse himself if he intended to follow the staff recommendation. 274 It seemed to me, by accepting the staff recommendation, no one would challenge his integrity. I recall Mr. Nussbaum responding to my statement by saying it was a decision that Mr. Altman would have to make. I do not have a clear recollection of the rest of the meeting. it lasted for approximately 45 minutes? I left the meeting when it was over. I took no action, other than to make a mental note to be alert to events on this issue as they unfolded. Several days after the meeting on February 2nd, I received a call from Mr. Altman telling me that he had decided not to recuse himself, and asking if I could gather a few White House staff members so he could make his announcement. I do not recall if Mr. Altman specified the staff members; however, I did call the White House Counsel's Office and reached Mr. Nussbaum or Mr. Eggleston, I cannot recall whom. I called Mr.'Ickes and Mr. Stephanopoulos. Mr. Altman stopped by my office in the west wing shortly thereafter and spoke briefly to the individuals who had gathered in my office, and then hurried away to his next appointment. That concludes my prepared remarks and I welcome any questions this Committee might have. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Let me pick up right at the end of your statement on this second meeting when Mr. Altman came back to indicate that he had decided not to recuse himself. What did he say in that meeting?. Ms. WILLIAMS. He said I am not going to recuse myself. I have decided not to recuse myself The CHAIRMAN. How long would you say that meeting lasted? MS. WILLIAMS. It did not last long at all, because Mr. Altman had another appointment to get to. He was in fact standing, as I recall, and had his briefcase in his hand. The CHAIRMAN. Did he give his reasons? Ms. WILLIAMS. No, he did not, not that I recall. The CHAIRMAN. Now, do I understand, you indicate that your best estimate is that the meeting the day before lasted about 45 minutes? Now last night, Mr. Eggleston estimated that about half the, meeting time was devoted to the recusal issue. Would that be your recollection, or not? Ms. WILLIAMS. I have not thought about the amount of time,' quite frankly. I just remember, on the whole, it was about 45 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want you to think about it for a minute. How long do you think the recusal part would have taken, as a percentage of the whole meeting? Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, since I came in late to the meeting, it is dif- ficult for me to say if it were half of the meeting. I do not recall, the exact time that I came into the meeting, but it was in progress, They had settled into a meeting.
August 4, 1994 - Part 5
(13:25:44) Mr. McLARTY. As great a privilege as it is to serve, the quick answer is too many of all. But in the course of a day my office would receive between 50 and 100 calls, we would try to return, as you know, most of them. There would be meetings not only on my schedule, but, more importantly certainly, on the President's schedule, that I either needed to be aware of or attend. And the hours although hours in the private sector for the people of this country are long and demanding, they are very long and demanding in public service as well. Sixteen-, 18-hour clays were not uncommon and are not uncommon to Members of this Committee. Ms. WILLIAMS. Senator, I believe that Mack has spoken well for me in terms of the hours and the number of meetings that we are involved in during the course of the day, but let me also talk a little bit about some of the activities around which those meetings and those telephone calls, what they had to do with. Mrs. Kelly, the President's mother, died the beginning of January, right after that the President and Mrs. Clinton went on with the planned trip to Russia. This was also the same month that California experienced the earthquakes. Mrs. Clinton went out later during that month to talk with the people in California, especially the children who were there. And also during that month, January, was the President's State of the Union on Health Care. And so you can imagine the amount of time that both Mr. McLarty and members of the White House staff put in that direction. We also--our entertaining did not stop. We had the National Governors Association dinner which is a pretty big deal to us. In addition we had the spouses. 340 In February, I believe the President and Mrs. Clinton came to Capitol Hill, I believe in Statuary Hall, to talk about Health Care. I also know that Mrs. Clinton headed the delegation to the Olympics. So there were a number of things that were happening which we deemed very important, which we deemed high enough on our priority to do a lot of meetings, work 18 hours a day and take all of those phone calls. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. And to that I would say-boy, the light has gone on already. The CHAIRMAN. I know you needed another couple of minutes and Senator D'Amato has agreed to that. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Oh, lovely. Thank you very much, Senator DAmato. And to that I would add and Mr. McLarty's statement, concluded the North American Free Trade Agreement, late lifted sanctions against South Africa, reinstituted the Super 301 Trade Powers, obtained GATT agreement, convened the APEC in Seattle, brought our G-7 allies to Detroit for a major conference on jobs. I remember that. Not to mention the economic legislation and the domestic agenda that he talked. So this was a very, busy, busy time, which gets to the question of structure and which I think really is credit here because we had a situation in which Mr. Altman was-had two jobs, for all intents and purposes, and it sounds like, based on the testimony, really more than two jobs because he had the RTC Interim Chairmanship/CEO and then the Deputy over at Treasury and then he was involved with Health Care, and so Mr. Altman was involved in all these activities. Ms. Hanson was for all intents and purposes wearing two hats as well, at Treasury and then also helping Mr. Altman with regard to RTC matters. My sum-up question, because I know I'm beyond time, given all of these circumstances and given the fact that you have to be able to structure interactions with this kind of context, would you agree-and I want to ask my question specifically to Mr. McLarty-I think what it suggests is that, would you agree that perhaps some additional steps ought to be taken to assure that the systems and processes and procedures are in place for employees at not just the White House because we've seen it-it was in place for the White House personnel, but for these related agencies as well and members of the Cabinet as well to make certain these interactions happen in a coherent, comprehensive way and we can avoid situations like the one we're in now. Mr. McLARTY. Senator, I would strongly agree with that. I think you make a very good point. I believe Secretary Bentsen responded to that briefly in response to questions here and I felt that was a very productive time of these hearings. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Ms. Williams and Mr. McLarty. Again, to Senator D'Amato, thank you very much for allowing me to go over my time. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator, Senator Domenici. 341
August 4, 1994 - Part 5
(13:35:27) What did Mr. Altman say about that process? MS. WILLIAMS. Well, from my testimony, and that quote, I believe, kind of summarizes it. Once again, let me tell you the gist of it, as I recall, was that the RTC staff, the process would be that the RTC staff would make a recommendation to him if he did not recuse himself or the RTC staff would make a recommendation to someone else in the RTC. That is essentially what I took away from the meeting. I was not focused on the details, but generally I understood what that meant. Senator DOMENICI. Did you pass that information on to the First Lady? Ms. WILLIAMS. No. I saw no reason to. Senator DOMENICI. But essentially your interpretation was that if Mr. Altman was still the head of the RTC, he would be the one making the decision as to whether they would be asked to waive the statute of limitations or not; is that correct? MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir, but let me clarify here. My understanding was, in addition, from Mr. Altman, was that whatever recommendation the RTC staff would make, he was likely to accept that recommendation. Senator DOMENICI. I understand. Ms. WILLIAMS. OK Senator DOMENICI. And that's what puzzles me so much. Why all the concern if in fact he had indicated they were going to make the decision and he wasn't? In your opinion, given what you heard and saw, why was the White House so concerned about his not recusing himself? Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, sir, I won't speak to the opinions of others, but since I was in that meeting and I suggested by my question to Mr. Altman that it didn't make any sense to me, if he was going to accept the recommendation from good staff work, why he would recuse. To me it was just a commonsense question. Here he's to accept the recommendation. The RTC staff has been involved, they know what's going on and he is going to look to staff that has been involved to accept or-to accept or reject the recommendation. And his view was at the time that he was likely to accept whatever their recommendation might be. My questions sprang from kind of common sense, why would you have to recuse then? Senator DOMENICI. So you found out that he did in fact recuse himself later on? 343 MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I did. Senator DOMENICI. And I gather that you know that he recused himself after the statute of limitations had been extended? Ms. WILLIAMS. I believe I know that, now subsequently, yes. Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Boxer, Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I understand Senator Gramm's statement and please, someone correct me if I don't accurately recall it-he said that Altman "dealt with the criminal matters on the 29th meeting." Now, that was the meeting that was held on the Waco situation where Ms. Hanson has testified that she told Mr. Nussbaum that he was going to have to deal with press leaks regarding the criminal referrals. And Senator Gramm says Altman dealt with the criminal matters. I think it's important to note, number one, that Mr. Altman testified to us that he didn't send Ms. Hanson to that meeting. I think it's also important to note that Ms. Hanson said she never saw the criminal referrals, that she didn't present the criminal referrals to anyone and I think it's important to note that as far as I can tell no one that appeared before us with the White House or with Treasury ever saw the criminal referrals. Mr. McLarty, have you ever seen the criminal referrals? Mr. McLARTY. No, I have not, Senator Boxer. Senator BOXER. Ms. Williams, have you ever seen the criminal referrals? Ms. WILLIAMS. No, Senator, I have not. Senator BOXER. To your knowledge, has the President or the First Lady seen the criminal referrals, Ms. Williams? MS. WILLIAMS. No. To my knowledge, they have not. Senator BOXER. And how about you, Mr. McLarty? Mr. MCLARTY, To my knowledge, they have not. Senator BOXER. I want to go to Mr. Altman's diary one more time. Ms. Williams, what you have said is that you have no memory of saying to Mr. Altman, "The First Lady is paralyzed over Whitewater." Is that correct? MS. WILLIAMS. That's correct, Senator, Senator BOXER. And you have stated that you would not say that to anyone? Ms. WILLIAMS. I have stated that it seems inconsistent with who I am and how I operate to have said that. Senator BOXER. But you did tell this Committee, I thought in a very articulate way, that you told almost anyone who would listen who was within the Administration or very close to the Administration that you thought there was too much time being spent on Whitewater, that it was diverting the First Lady, the President, and the White House staff from the country's agenda that you seem to care very much about; is that correct?
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(10:10:39) Mr. HUBBELL. If I had the time and the resources. Senator BOND. If there were items in there that you felt might be within the scope of the request, but would be subject to a privilege, you would indicate a description of the document without the content and indicate that it was privileged? Mr. HUBBELL. That's the way it's handled in a lot of civil litigation, yes, sir. Senator BOND. Are you aware of any documentation made of the contents of Mr. Foster's office? Mr. HUBBELL. Not one way or the other, Senator BOND. Are you aware of any notes taken by the Associate White House Counsel and Mr. Foster's attorney after the death? Mr. HUBBELL. Not one way or the other, Senator. Senator BOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bond. We'll return to this side because we only have a minute left. Senator Kerry. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hubbell, you were not really directly involved in any of the ctual search for any files in Mr. Foster's office; correct? 84 Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator KERRY. You, in effect, took yourself completely out of the investigation portion with respect to the office; correct? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct, Senator. Senator KERRY. You issued no orders with respect to the search?, Mr. HUBBELL. I was acting as a family friend from the moment., I heard of Vince's death, and I don't believe I issued any orders. Senator KERRY. So, essentially, any questions that have been asked of you with respect to the search of the office, whatever you know, you only know as a secondhand matter; correct? Mr. HUBBELL. Regarding Vince's office, that's correct. Senator KERRY. Do you, as a matter of fact, now know that the' Park Police succeeded in seeing each file that they wanted to see? Mr. HUBBELL. I don't know one way or the other. Senator KERRY. You have no knowledge whatsoever? Mr. HUBBELL. I do not. Senator KERRY. You can't shed any light on the central question that's on this Committee about the handling of the documents? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator KERRY. Now, at some point prior to coming to Washington during the course of the campaign, you came to have possession of the so-called Whitewater files; correct? Mr. HUBBELL. No, I don't know what people mean by Whitewater file, Senator KERRY. You had a file that was built up in the course of the campaign to respond to questions during the campaign? Mr. HUBBELL. I had a file that had been assimilated by the campaign that was labeled Whitewater, but I don't necessarily-and I'm sure that was not all the Whitewater files. Senator KERRY. But whatever you had, were you the designated holder, in a sense, of the campaign's accrued information on this issue? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator KERRY, It was an issue that was brought up several times during the course of the campaign and the campaign needed to respond? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator KERRY. You were the central repository of that information? Mr. HUBBELL. After the election, yes. Senator KERRY. After the election you took that central repository and you put it in your home? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator KERRY. After you put it in your home in Little Rock, at some point it came to be in your home in Washington? Mr. HUBBELL. That is correct. Senator KERRY. But it never went to the Justice Department? Mr. HUBBELL. Never went to the Justice Department. Senator KERRY. It never went to Vince Foster's office? Mr. HUBBELL. No, it did not. Senator KERRY. You never had a conversation with Vince Foster about the files that you had, did you? Mr. HUBBELL. Vince was aware that I had the campaign files, but not what they were. 85 Senator KERRY. You never gave him any portion of them? Mr. HUBBELL. No, I did not. Senator KERRY. Did Vince ever call you and ask you a question about your files? Mr. HUBBELL. No, Vince did not. Senator KERRY. In effect, while you were the central repository of this information in the course of the campaign and retained all of the files from the campaign, which was about as heated and as intense a period of scrutiny as you could find, those files never found their way into Vince Foster's hands? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator KERRY. Nor to the White House? Mr. HUBBELL. Nor to the White House, except for one file that's not related to Whitewater in any way. Senator KERRY. Now, it's my understand ing-again, this is secondhand for you, it's secondhand for all of us, but with respect to the question Senator Shelby was asking, it's my understanding that the Park Police were not there to specifically look at a Whitewater file?
July 19, 1995 - Part 1
(10:10:39) Mr. HUBBELL. If I had the time and the resources. Senator BOND. If there were items in there that you felt might be within the scope of the request, but would be subject to a privilege, you would indicate a description of the document without the content and indicate that it was privileged? Mr. HUBBELL. That's the way it's handled in a lot of civil litigation, yes, sir. Senator BOND. Are you aware of any documentation made of the contents of Mr. Foster's office? Mr. HUBBELL. Not one way or the other, Senator BOND. Are you aware of any notes taken by the Associate White House Counsel and Mr. Foster's attorney after the death? Mr. HUBBELL. Not one way or the other, Senator. Senator BOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bond. We'll return to this side because we only have a minute left. Senator Kerry. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hubbell, you were not really directly involved in any of the ctual search for any files in Mr. Foster's office; correct? 84 Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator KERRY. You, in effect, took yourself completely out of the investigation portion with respect to the office; correct? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct, Senator. Senator KERRY. You issued no orders with respect to the search?, Mr. HUBBELL. I was acting as a family friend from the moment., I heard of Vince's death, and I don't believe I issued any orders. Senator KERRY. So, essentially, any questions that have been asked of you with respect to the search of the office, whatever you know, you only know as a secondhand matter; correct? Mr. HUBBELL. Regarding Vince's office, that's correct. Senator KERRY. Do you, as a matter of fact, now know that the' Park Police succeeded in seeing each file that they wanted to see? Mr. HUBBELL. I don't know one way or the other. Senator KERRY. You have no knowledge whatsoever? Mr. HUBBELL. I do not. Senator KERRY. You can't shed any light on the central question that's on this Committee about the handling of the documents? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator KERRY. Now, at some point prior to coming to Washington during the course of the campaign, you came to have possession of the so-called Whitewater files; correct? Mr. HUBBELL. No, I don't know what people mean by Whitewater file, Senator KERRY. You had a file that was built up in the course of the campaign to respond to questions during the campaign? Mr. HUBBELL. I had a file that had been assimilated by the campaign that was labeled Whitewater, but I don't necessarily-and I'm sure that was not all the Whitewater files. Senator KERRY. But whatever you had, were you the designated holder, in a sense, of the campaign's accrued information on this issue? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator KERRY, It was an issue that was brought up several times during the course of the campaign and the campaign needed to respond? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator KERRY. You were the central repository of that information? Mr. HUBBELL. After the election, yes. Senator KERRY. After the election you took that central repository and you put it in your home? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator KERRY. After you put it in your home in Little Rock, at some point it came to be in your home in Washington? Mr. HUBBELL. That is correct. Senator KERRY. But it never went to the Justice Department? Mr. HUBBELL. Never went to the Justice Department. Senator KERRY. It never went to Vince Foster's office? Mr. HUBBELL. No, it did not. Senator KERRY. You never had a conversation with Vince Foster about the files that you had, did you? Mr. HUBBELL. Vince was aware that I had the campaign files, but not what they were. 85 Senator KERRY. You never gave him any portion of them? Mr. HUBBELL. No, I did not. Senator KERRY. Did Vince ever call you and ask you a question about your files? Mr. HUBBELL. No, Vince did not. Senator KERRY. In effect, while you were the central repository of this information in the course of the campaign and retained all of the files from the campaign, which was about as heated and as intense a period of scrutiny as you could find, those files never found their way into Vince Foster's hands? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator KERRY. Nor to the White House? Mr. HUBBELL. Nor to the White House, except for one file that's not related to Whitewater in any way. Senator KERRY. Now, it's my understand ing-again, this is secondhand for you, it's secondhand for all of us, but with respect to the question Senator Shelby was asking, it's my understanding that the Park Police were not there to specifically look at a Whitewater file?
July 20, 1995 - Part 1
(09:50:29) The CHAIRMAN. At the conclusion of yesterday's public session, we spent some time discussing how to get this information or see whether it has any relevance to Whitewater. So we've asked counsel to attempt to work this out so that we would not be forced to consider other measures. I hope that we would be able to work this out in a cooperative manner. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to underscore the comments made by Senator Sarbanes and yourself here. I think it is important that we try to reach an agreement. I think we can. My own view-and I don't have all the numbers in front of me, but I think it's important. I think Members here will agree we've had a very cooperative White House on these matters. Literally thousands of documents and pages have been turned over. I think, again, looking at this thing stepping back, putting aside the particular issue here in front of us, there's an obvious-and would be by any Administration in the White House-trying to make sure, not just in their case, but precedent setting in terms of documents and what gets revealed and so forth. That's a normal and expected response, but. I'm impressed with the fact that the White House clearly does want to see us be able to work this out in a way so our counsel and someone can make decisions here so we're not left with the unanswered questions of 146 what's not on those papers, particularly if it's not relevant. If, not relevant, we can say that and move on. I applaud the efforts 11 here and hope by Tuesday we can work something out so this" comes a non-issue. The CHAIRMAN. We have two capable counsels and, if it can be done, I'm sure they will be able to work this out. I hope can we do this and dispel the open questions. I call our first panel: Sergent Cheryl Braun, Detective John Rolla, Major Robert Hines. Sergeant Braun, good to see you again. We apologize for keeping you. I guess we thought we'd get you on 2 days ago, but I'm glad you're here. If you have an opening statement, we'd be pleased to take it. Ms. BRAUN. Good morning, Chairman. I have a brief introduc- tion. Senator DODD. Could you bring that microphone a little closer to you, Sergeant? Thank you. SWORN TESTIMONY OF CHERYL A. BRAUN SERGEANT, U.S. PARK POLICE Ms. BRAUN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of Committee, I am Sergeant Cheryl Braun with the U.S. Park Polk, I have been a member of the U.S. Park Police for 10 years. During the course of my career, I was assigned for 6 years to the Balti- more/Washington Parkway as a patrol officer. My next assignment was just under 2 years in duration as a plainclothes investigator in the Criminal Investigations Branch. In August 1993, 1 was promoted to the rank of sergeant and as- signed to the Baltimore/Washington Parkway. In May 1994, 1 was assigned to the Crime and Violence Task Force, which worked the Fifth District of Washington, DC. In October 1994, the Crime and Violence Task Force ended and I was reassigned to the Central District, which works the downtown and Mall area of Washington, DC. My current assignment is as a squad sergeant at the Central District. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree in Criminal Justice from University of Maryland. In 1985, 1 attended and completed Prince George's County Police Academy and the Federal Law enforcement Training Center for basic police training. In 1990, 1 tended the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center for the Criminal Investigators School. During my career, I received train- ing on child abuse investigation, robbery and burglary investiga- tion, a homicide seminar through the Harvard and Police Associ- ates and other police patrol-related training. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Detective Rolla. SWORN TESTIMONY OF JOHN C. ROLLA DETECTIVE, U.S. PARK POLICE Mr. ROLLA. How are you? This is just an introduction basically My name is John C. Rolla. I joined the U.S. Park Police in 19 I hold the rank of detective in the Criminal Investigations Br where I have been assigned since 1988. 1 have served in the cotics and Vice Unit, and I have been assigned to a Drug En 0 ment Task Force for 2 years. 147 I received specialized training at the FBI Academy and have worked on a number of high-level drug conspiracy cases and smuggling operations. I was promoted to plainclothes investigator in 1990. 1 have completed specialized training courses in narcotics investigation and criminal investigation at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia, as well as homicide investigation courses throughout the Washington, DC Metropolitan area and Metro Dade Police Department in Florida. Presently I am assigned to the Major Crimes Section of the U.S. Park Police Criminal Investigations Branch.
July 25, 1995 - Part 3
(12:00:27) Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Mr. Gearan, with respect to the conversation you had with Mr. Heymann on the 29th, was Mr. Gergen present? Mr. GEARAN. Yes, he was on the phone. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Who else was on the phone? Mr- GEARAN. I don't recall anyone else on the phone. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. On that occasion, sir, was it correct that you knew that, in addition to Mr. Gergen, that Mr. Collier had voiced some question about whether the Administration should take something of a different tack in terms of its cooperation with the police? Mr. GEARAN. I was not aware of any concerns by Mr. Collier, no. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Did you subsequently learn that Mr. Collier had spoken to Mr. Heymann? Mr. GEARAN. I know it's referenced in my notes, but I'm not aware of it, no. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Is it fair to say, sir, that there were others in the Administration who had a concern that perhaps Mr. Nussbaum had been too close to Mr. Foster, too close to the situation and that it was time to take a step backward? Mr. GEARAN. I'm certainly aware of the Justice Department view which referenced that perhaps there are people too close to Vince, as my notes reflect. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. For example, with respect to the question of the release of the content of the torn-up note, was it the decision you came to that the timing of the release of the content should be left to the police rather than to the White House? Mr. GEARAN. That was what Mr. Heymann recommended to us, that it be left to the investigators, which is what we did. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. In fact, that is the course which the Administration followed? Mr. GEARAN. That's correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. I have nothing further at this time, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We have a vote, but I think we ran at least start Senator Mack's round of questioning. Then, at that point, we will have another vote after this one, this is a live quorum call. That will take us well past 12:30 by the time we finish, so it's my intent that we will adjourn after Senator Mack's questioning so that we can make the two votes and then we'll resume at 2 p.m. 282 There are other questions of this panel that our Senators will put to them, then we will go to Patsy Thomasson which will be the next panel, With that, Senator Mack. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR CONNIE MACK Senator MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gearan, I want to direct my questions to you this morning. I do so, I must say, with some ambivalence. I honestly feel that you have-and I think it's obvious in the notes that we've gone through-that you have made every effort to put yourself in a position where you can answer some very difficult questions that are going to be posed to you throughout the day on many, many different subjects. In fact, you made the comment just a moment ago that you make every effort to get that information, and I commend you for doing that. On the other hand, though, I see so many misstatements, so many things over time that have been stated by members of the White House staff all the way to the President of the United States that over time turn out to be inaccurate. That's the reason that I have some ambivalence about these questions and the discussion that we're going to have. But I welcome you here this morning and I will proceed. Mr. GEARAN. Thank you, Senator. Senator MACK. In a December 22, 1993 interview, when asked about the files that were removed from Foster's office , the President stated he didn't "know what's in the file" and he stated that there was, again, "this one file, and know if there were any more, but there was this file which related to work he had done before he came to work at the White House. There was never any indication that anyone wanted to see it, Obviously, if anybody feels that there is some relevance to any ongoing investigation, we'll do whatever we can to cooperate." The President is implying that there was only one file. This is the file that I referred to earlier in these hearings, one small file; and that Foster wasn't actively working on Whitewater. Looking at the larger stack of documents, which the Committee later obtained, what the President said about one file wasn't correct, was it? Mr. GEARAN. Senator, I don't know in the instance of the President's interview how extensive he was referring to it. I'm aware that he said he was aware of the limited scope of what was presented, but beyond that I'm not
August 2, 1994 - Part 6
(00:55:26) The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes, could I interrupt based on time to try to extend your time, Senator D'Amato has made a suggestion and I advise all Committee Members we've been going with 7-minute segments. Senator D'Amato has recommended to me that as of now we shift to 10-minute periods so we don't have as many break-ups in the question and therefore, if that's agreeable, we'll do that now and extend Senator Sarbanes by the 3 additional minutes and then from this point on, we'll go in 10-minute segments. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with that and I wonder then if you'll be sharp with the gavel? The CHAIRMAN. I've been trying to be without being rude to people, so we'll go in that fashion, and Senator Sarbanes is to be recognized for 3 additional minutes. We'll now have 10-minute questioning periods from this point on, Senator SARBANES. You think it would have been proper or appropriate for the Public Affairs Officer of the RTC to bring to the 429 White House's attention for the first time that these criminal referrals have been made to the Justice Department? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, that's not my understanding of what happened. Again, I wasn't there. My understanding of what happened, and I understand this has been confirmed in the depositions, for instance$ which the Office of Government Ethics took, the purpose of the communication was to alert the White House of an impending press leak. We also know Senator SARBANES. But in the course of alerting them, you can't divorce, even if I accept that the purpose was alerting them of the press leak, the fact that that alert brought to their attention the criminal referrals? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, we have the report of the Office of Government Ethics, as you know. Very thorough report, it's an independent agency, It's not part of the Clinton Administration and it coneluded that those contacts were appropriate. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Altman, it's possible not to do something illegal, not to do something unethical, and yet to do something that reflects very bad judgment, is it not? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, it is Senator and a numb er of people have said, Mr. Cutler, Secretary Bentsen, that in hindsight it would have been better had those contacts not occurred. Senator SARBANES. On what basis was Ms. Hanson involved in these RTC matters in any event? I mean you were wearing, two hats, you were Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and the CEO of the RTC. Now on what basis was she brought into these matters? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I was relying on a number of Treasury staff as my predecessor 7 Mr. Robson, did to help me with RTC matters. I was able to give very little time to the RTC. Two senior staff meetings a week lasted about 11/2 hours each, and I needed help. I asked a number of Treasury staff, Frank Newman, Under Secrets for Domestic Finance, Mike Levy, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, and others including Jean Hanson to help me out. Senator SARBANES. Ms. Hanson says she would not have gone on her own to Nussbaum to tell him about these criminal referrals, that that is something she would not have done of her own volition, and she did it, therefore, at your behest. What's your response to that? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't recollect that, Senator, I don't think I would have tasked Ms. Hanson to do that. Senator SARBANES. Let's strike the word "ta-sked." Maybe that's-I mean I'm listening very carefully to your answer. Mr. ALTMAN. That's her word. Senator SARBANES. I understand that. Let's try some other words. Did you do anything or make any indication to Ms. Hanson that she should bring this information to the attention of the White House? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I don't believe that I did. I can't say, of course what she may have inferred. I don't believe that I did. Senator SARBANES. What did you do on the basis of which she might have inferred, I think that 's the word you just used, that she might have inferred that she should go to Nussbaum with this information? 430 Mr. ALTMAN. I don't believe I did anything, Senator. All I'm saying is that she could have perhaps misunderstood, Senator SARBANES. What would she have misunderstood? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, my response is that I don't recall tasking her to do it, I think I would have remembered if I had done it. have a lot of respect for Jean Hanson, we're friends and we're colleagues and I hope we're going to remain so. I'm simply saying that she may have misunderstood. Senator SARBANES. Well, I'm trying to
August 9, 1995 - Part 3
(12:25:39) The CHAIRMAN. I am. This picking on New York, they make us out to all be aggressive. I've been so unaggressive and Bernie's been very laid back today. Senator SARBANES. If the Senator from Alabama would yield, I tried to establish at the outset that there were a lot of able lawyers, elsewhere besides New York. Senator SHELBY. Absolutely, but there are also a lot of able ones in New York, and Mr. Nussbaum's one of them. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Thank you, Senator. Senator SHELBY. Now, Mr. Nussbaum, how long were you in pri- vate practice prior to January 19937 Mr. NUSSBAUM. I was in private practice, I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1962 through 1966, taking time out to serve in the U.S. Army. I was in private practice then from 1966 to 1993, taking time out to join my friends. Mr. Ben-Veniste and other people, and Mr. Heymann in Washington ton in 1974, to work on the Watergate matter. Senator SHELBY. YOU were counsel, one of the counsel on the Watergate hearings, is that right? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I was Senior Associate Special Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Inquiry. Senator SHELBY. So you had not only your private practice experience that you related, but you also had that unique experience on Watergate? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I certainly did. Senator SHELBY. Now, when you came to work, when was that, January 19? For the Government, when did you come to work? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Well, I officially went on duty, although I started work a little earlier, January 20, 1994. Senator SHELBY. Is that the date of the Inauguration? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Excuse me, January 20, 1993. That's the date of the Inauguration. Senator SHELBY. So when you went on duty, you went on the payroll of the U.S. Government, did you riot? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. You ceased to be a private attorney then, did you not? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. Back in July 1993, on July 20 and 21, subsequent dates, you were on the public payroll working as the White House Counsel here in Washington, DC. You were Counsel to the President of the United States? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I was Counsel to the President of the United States. 1241 Senator SHELBY. OK. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Which I was highly honored to be. Senator SHELBY. Sure. It's a great job, a highly respectful job. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Tough job. Senator SHELBY. Tough job is right. Now, Mr. Nussbaum, during this time from January 20, 1993, were you engaged, in any way, as a private attorney for anyone? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, Senator, I had my hands full with the job I had. Senator SHELBY, The answer is no, Mr. NUSSBAUM. The answer is no. Senator SHELBY, So back on July 20, 1993, you were totally a Government lawyer working for the President of the United States as his Counsel? Mr. NUSSBAUM. With a specific function, yes. Senator SHELBY. That's right, but on the Government payroll? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I was on the Government payroll. Senator SHELBY. That's what I'm asking you. Now, let's go back to a couple of things you said. You said that the day after Vince Foster's death, that you were functioning as a lawyer again? In other words, you knew you had a job to do as White House Counsel, and that your mind, quote, "was focused," is that right, just a few minutes ago? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Senator SHELBY. Your mind was focused Mr. NUSSBAUM. My Mind was focused. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Nussbaum, you carry quite a memory with that mind, don't you? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Senator SHELBY. Historically wouldn't you say you've got a good memory? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Absolutely, I do. Senator SHELBY. Let's go back to when you first had a conversation, let's go in sequence, if you'll recall, with Mr. Heymann. When did you call, if you did, Mr. Heymann regarding the investigation of the Vince Foster's death? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I believe I called him mid-day, maybe even early in the day, 11:00 or 12:00 o'clock, maybe as early as that, on July 21, to ask him have the Department of Justice coordinate the various investigations which I believed would take place. Senator SHELBY. How long did this conversation go on? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Very short, Senator. Senator SHELBY. Very short. Was that the only conversation you had with Mr. Heymann that day? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I believe so. Obviously, he said he would think about it, so I did receive information, although he indicated that he was going to do it in all probability. It's possible he called me again to say OK, but I don't remember that, I remember that conversation and receiving, at some point, either in that conversation or thereafter, an affirmative answer to my request.
LAWMAKERS
WETA "LAWMAKERS" 2/18/1983 IN 16.01.50-WETA credit/sponsor credits/title sequence 16.02.43-PAUL DUKE/LINDA WERTHEIMER/COKIE ROBERTS-DUKE-REAGAN and CONGRESS on different agendas over spending and Arms Control. ROBERTS-Controversy over the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, with six different Committees of Congress investigating the agency. WERTHEIMER-BANKING LOBBY fighting TAX REFORM calling for automatic withholding of income tax from INTEREST and DIVIDEND income. DUKE-CASPAR WEINBERGER returns to Capitol Hill to fight against HOUSE CUTS IN DEFENSE BUDGET. Sen. SAM NUNN (D-GA) a key player. 16.04.16-C/S of colleagues of Sen. NUNN discussing his involvement in DEFENSE, joking about his lack of charisma. C/S NUNN, shots of a banquet audience where the colleagues are making friendly jokes about him. Shot of small airplane on runway. C/S group of AIR FORCE BRASS greeting NUNN'S arrival at MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, Georgia. M/S F-4 jet fighter taxiing on runway. NUNN-the South since "the war between the states" has been more conscious of defense matters, more interest in the military. C/S NUNN with group of soldiers. C/S Former Sen. HERMAN TALMADGE (D-GA), says SOUTHERNERS are highly patriotic, Georgians are always willing to stand up for defense. 16.06.47-C/S Bert Lance, former aide to Jimmy Carter, says SOUTHERNERS are the only people in the U.S. to have lost a war, understand the need to be prepared. Drive-by of lot of military base with jeeps and trucks. DUKE v.o.-the DEFENSE INDUSTRY is central to GEORGIA'S economy. M/S NUNN in ceremonial groundbreaking for new military base, applauded by group of troops. Stills of NUNN from his childhood, in Boy Scout uniform, as high school basketball player, in Coast Guard uniform. Old film of NUNN in his first U.S. SENATE CAMPAIGN, shaking hands. C/S Sen. JOHN STENNIS (D-MS) in office, says NUNN had a good reputation before he arrived in Washington. Shot follows NUNN walking down sidewalk. Shot of large group of flag-waving spectators, shots of former Rep. CARL VINSON, NUNN'S great uncle. 16.08.40-C/S NEWT GINGRICH in office, says NUNN has VINSON'S savvy about DEFENSE LEGISLATION. C/S NUNN in office, says he thinks people stopped thinking about defense after VIETNAM, security was at risk. Shots of NUNN in 1979 SENATE COMMITTEE HEARING over SALT II TREATY, arguing that SOCIAL WELFARE SPENDING has gone up while DEFENSE SPENDING has fallen. Witness AL HAIG says it's true. DUKE v.o.-NUNN'S growing influence often hurt JIMMY CARTER. C/S Carter aide, says REAGAN would do well to consult with NUNN on defense issues since NUNN is so influential.
LAWMAKERS
09.06.37-ROBERTS intro report on CONGRESSIONAL ethics actions with regard to FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS with regard to established CAUCUSES in CONGRESS-laws only apply to individual members. 09.07.17-Shot of Rep. CHARLES WILSON (D-TX), says that it's politically important for a Congressman to be involved with caucuses that serve their constituents. Shots of a CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS meeting. ROBERTS v.o.-almost every major industry in U.S. has a CAUCUS in congress, ID's this caucus as the DEMOCRATIC STUDY GROUP, a formal group of LIBERAL DEMOCRATS. Shot of Rep. Speaking to caucus. Shot of group of BLACK CONGRESSMEN standing on CAPITOL STEPS, singing "we shall overcome". Shot of CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS meeting. Shots of a luncheon meeting of the ARTS CAUCUS-v.o.-dedicated to preserving NEA funding. 09.08.48-Shot of Rep. BOB EDGAR (D-PA), says that CAUCUSES give a focus to the ISSUES. Shots of congressmen in a Caucus meeting of Northeast/Midwest Coalition. Shot of Rep. CHARLES WILSON in office, says that the regional caucuses are excessively provincial, states that 20 Texans died in a heatwave and the Northeast/Midwest members didn't care, but "two Yankees froze to death and they went nuts". ROBERTS v.o.-WILSON felt he had to form a Caucus to compete, the CONGRESSIONAL SUNBELT COUNCIL, growth of CAUCUSES. 09.10.19-Shot of meeting of BETTER GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION, investigating various CAUCUSES. BGA leader, says that CAUCUSES can receive funds in ways that individual Congressmen can't, even taking money from foreign governments. Shot of BGA worker on phone, calling to confirm an interview with a Congressman. ROBERTS v.o.-CAUCUSES seen by some as a backdoor to influence-peddling, i.e. tourism industry gave hundreds of thousands to members of a caucus. 09.11.40-Shot of Rep. BOB EDGAR, says that CAUCUSES are not regulated enough. Shots of meeting of HOUSE ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE. Shot of Rep. PATRICIA SCHROEDER standing outside CAPITOL, says that regulating CAUCUSES is overdue, legitimate caucuses suffer along with the influence-peddlers. Shot of BGA leader, says they don't want to abolish Caucuses, but to make sure they don't abuse their powers, prevent formation of CAUCUSES to serve outside LOBBYING INTERESTS. 09.13.00-DUKE/ROBERTS in studio; discussion of CAUCUSES, CONGRESS is "studying" issue, DUKE intro commentary by CHARLES McDOWELL. 09.14.06-McDOWELL, commentary on the sale of MILITARY RADAR PLANES to SAUDI ARABIA. Says that AWACS is a sophisticated military radar, making it perfect for a "kingdom out of the middle ages" like SAUDI ARABIA. Comments on the nature of the debate, with totally contradictory positions taken at different times by proponents of the sale. 09.16.04-DUKE-signs off. Closing credits/transcript order information/WETA credit/Sponsor credits/PBS ID. N 09.18.28-OUT
Margaret Heckler
Voice of adult female reporter (off camera) asks Margaret Heckler the nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services "Mrs. Heckler, during the Congressional campaign against Barney Frank, you sold yourself as an independent candidate; someone that was independent from the White House, that you were never afraid to say no to the President and to tell him that you disagreed with him. As a result, you voted against many of his bills, you said, during the campaign. Would you say that's changed now?" Mrs. Heckler responds "I'd just simply like to say this; I think this is not the time to expand on what happened before or what will happen in the future. I think this is a juncture in my life in which, when I look back on 16 years of Congressional service, I do so with a great sense of pride and a great sense of gratitude, to God and to the people of Massachusetts, for the privilege of serving in the Congress. That, until this point, was the highlight of my life, in a professional sense. I think my family has been the real highlight of my life." Adult male reporter off-screen tries to ask question, but is cut off by Mrs. Heckler .... "But the fact is, at this point, I want to say that I look forward to the opportunity to serve in a very different role, and I respect the President tremendously. I will be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. I would not like to discuss the substantive issues which will come before my desk in that post. I also feel that substantive issues will be explored in the important Senate confirmation sessions; which, as a courtesy to my colleagues in the Senate, will be reserved for them and that point we will discuss the policy questions. I will say that I was very gratified to receive the first call from Senator Kennedy today, who said he was applauding the President's selection, and offered to present me to the Senate Confirmation Committee. And I accepted with a sense of gratitude. I thought it was a very kind offer on his part. As for me, I think this is just a personal moment of enormous elation and excitement. I don't minimize the difficulties. I did not seek this post. However, I think it is a challenge to public service that builds on what I've done before, and extends its dimensions. And it's one of those unexpected opportunities in life that I think I could not, in any sense, reject. I accept it with gratitude to the President, and for his confidence in me. And gratitude to the Lord for making it possible. Thank you very much, really."
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:25:00) The CHAIRMAN. I've listened patiently to the Senator from Massachusetts and I want to continue to. We can take that question receiving criminal referrals from the RTC. 87 up. What I do want to say, because I've tried in every instance to allow people extra time when they've sought it, is that I expect everybody to stay in bounds on that, no matter how strongly they feel about the question they're raising or how important it may be. I think -we've got to do that. Otherwise, we're going to have a situation where we're not going to be able to enforce any ground rules. I know the Senator understands that. Senator KERRY. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. Hell have another opportunity to make his comment on that area because I don't intend to be arbitrary to anybody in terms of the points they feel compelled to make. Let me yield to Senator DAmato now. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague, Senator Domenici. from New Mexico had some points and questions he wanted to make. I'll yield them to you, Senator. Senator DOMENICI I'll yield them to you. Senator DAMATO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to express my thanks to the witnesses. I find several things rather extraordinary. I find it absolutely inconceivable that we can justify making confidential criminal referrals of anybody available to anyone, least of all people who may be mentioned as witnesses, and particularly-if you might say, well, there was a matter involving that person as a witness, and that person is in some prominent position and we're fearful of the leaks, so to be fair-wbat about the other eight referrals? What about those referrals that did not pertain to them? I Second, I find it absolutely incredible and incredulous to come to the assumption that there was no harm because there was no foul. Mr. Roelle, do you know whether or not, as a result of divulging any of this information to people at the White House, people may have been tipped off in the vernacular, evidence was destroyed, hidden, or altered? Do you have any knowledge whether that did or did not happen? Mr. ROELLE. No, sir.. Senator DAMATO. You couldn't have. Ms. Kulka, do you know whether or not that happened? Ms. KULKA. No, sir, I don't know, precisely, what information 'you're referring to. Senator DAmAT0. The fact of those criminal referrals, whether, as a result of that information being given, people who would be targets, etcetera were tipped off. You don't know whether or not that happened? Ms. KuLKA. That's true, sir, and several Senator D'AMATO. That's what I want to hear. This business no one charged you with altercation you not altering your conduct, your conduct. I understand that. Mr. Ryan, do you know, as a result of this, whether or not some of the people who may have been mentioned in here may have been tipped off and whether or not evidence that may have been possible to subpoena no longer examine. You don't know whether it happened or not and I don't know whether it happened or not and that's the reason that this is information that should not be disseminated. That's why. Let me make a point and a distinction as it relates to our Bank ing Committee staff making inquiries as it related to the RTC. We 88 wanted to ascertain because there was some question and confusion as to when the statute of limitations would run. Is that improper? Ms. KULKA. The question is never improper, sir. Senator D'AMATO. We wanted to ascertain whether or not it the usual policy to entertain tolling agreements By the way, I said this publicly. I said it on the floor of the Senate. I said it to ~, Committee and, as a matter of fact, we were able to get some in information which we were having difficulty getting because, at a public , In hearing, when I complained about not getting the kind of response Be an, we needed and about getting perfunctory letters, the Chairman said "Listen ' that shouldn't be, let's get some information." is public information that people are entitled to. Ms. KULKA. Sir, early on, I bad a lot of concern about we should be responding or talking about what our opinion when the statute ran. I think ink it was Mr. Altman who kept pressing me to try to do that, to try to respond to you. Senator DAMATO. I bad written him a number of letters. As a matter of fact, I think I wrote him a letter from nine Senators asking him to be responsive. We finally got that. There was no attempt to find out who was named, what was in the criminal indictment or in the criminal referral, or what the nature of the action was, but rather if there would be preservation of the taxpayer's rights. We were told that they would handlethis case in a normal matter. Last, but not least, I'm going to say, if we buy off on the propo- sition that wherever there's a press inquiry made, that therefore, whoever it is, whether it's the U.S. Attorney, whether it is the RTC, or any independent agency, that they can then break the rules against public disclosure and go to the very person whose name may be mentioned, we've set a whole new standard, and we have no confidentiality. Because of the fact that it was two people at the White House and the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were mentioned as wit-nesses that's the last place, then, there should have been disclosure as it relates to this, When Mr. Roelle would get a question as it relates to what would happen his response in these kinds of cases is no comment. Isn't that correct?
August 3, 1994 - Part 8
(19:40:40) Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, my recollection is that-I can't remember how I got to Maggie Williams' office, although it's about 10 yards from Mr. Nussbaum's office. It's in the same general location of the west wing. Senator GRAMM. You walked over there, though? Mr. EGGLESTON. I must have-let me just say also I don't think that Mr. Altman was thinking about meeting 151 Senator GRAMM. Let me go back-Mr. Altman came in. You were there. What did he say and how did he say it? Mr. EGGLESTON. He came in. He did not sit down. As I recall, he stood right inside the door, closed the door and said, quietly without any particular emphasis, I've decided not to recuse or I've decided not to recuse for now-I can't quite remember which one and turned around and walked out. I think he was Senator GRAMM. That's all he said, he came in and said, I've decided not to recuse, and then he walked out. Was there applause? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, I think he walked out and the meeting-if you call it a meeting, no one was sitting-lasted about 10 seconds. There was no applause. Senator GRAMM. No one said a word? Mr. EGGLESTON. I do not remember anyone saying anything back to him. I don't think he was there long enough. Senator GRAMM. But people were still there when Ms. Hanson showed up, who had been beeped to come out of her luncheon. Mr. EGGLESTON. Ms. Hanson showed up within seconds of the time Mr. Altman left. Senator GRAMM. Is that not the meeting where Mr. Ickes says to her, how many people know about this recusal thing, and she said three, and he said, well, that's good we don't want it to be known? Is that the meeting where that happened? Mr. EGGLESTON. Let me just make sure I'm clear about what I remember about it. The CHAIRMAN. Why don't you go ahead and finish this answer. Time is up and we 're going to continue on here, but complete the answer. Mr. EGGLESTON. My recollection is that Mr. Ickes said, how many people at Treasury know about this. I thought she said four or five and I don't remember anything after that. I think I was leaving. This was over. Nothing-we were all standing, when this took place, by the door, and I walked out. Senator D'AMATO. I think you gave a deposition where you indicated that you did hear the statement and that Mr. Ickes says, it's better that you forget that. Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, you know, I don't think that I did say that in my deposition. I think I was asked what I understood by that, and I think I understood by that that he meant that should be closely held, and I apologize if I'm misremembering but I think I didn't say that I had heard, actually, the rest of the conversation. I'm just doing my best. If that's wrong, Senator D'Amato, I'm sorry. The CHAIRMAN. We'll dig it out and check. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Earlier, as I recall, I think a couple of you said that after the testimony of February 24th before the Committee, there was concern in the White House over two things: one, that Mr. Altman had not mentioned the recusal discussion that took place at the meeting of February 2nd; and second, that the earlier contacts had not been referenced. He' said there was only that one contact. Then there was a third thing which you said didn't rise to the level of who called the meeting. Why did you think that Altman knew about the earlier contacts? 152 Mr. EGGLESTON. Senator, it was our view-we did not think--I did not think that he knew about the earlier contacts) but it seemed to me, and it seemed to others in these meetings, including I think, Mr. Mein, that Mr. Altman was answering on behalf of the' RTC. The question that Mr. Bond-that Senator Bond had Posed to him was when the RTC informed the White House about the criminal referrals. It was our view that he was responding on behalf of his institution, that Ms. Hanson had been sitting at the hearing, and that he should at least-even if he did not know that he should at least for the record make clear that there had been these earlier-because he was not-he was responding on behalf of his institution and if he had information-if his institution had information that was contrary to what he thought, he still should be providing it to the Committee. That was our Senator SARBANES. That information was transmitted by Ms. Hanson from the Treasury. Was Altman, in effect, very carefully making a distinction there? Mr. EGGLESTON. I was not thinking about this issue that carefully. I knew she was sitting there. I think he was testifying in his role as head of the RTC, not in his role as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Sloan, you were at the-at least partially this meeting with Nussbaum and Hanson on September 29th? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator SARBANES. Did you think Hanson was-did you think that Altman knew the information that Hanson was bringing to you? Mr. SLOAN, The only information that I can relate that bears on that on September 29th is that in the course of the fairly brief conversation, Ms. Hanson said that she thought that Roger Altman had sent Bernie some materials on this previously. That's the only reference to Roger Altman that I recall.
July 29, 1994 - Part 3
(13:15:07) Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, that's my problem. 55 Mr. COLOMBELL. Senator, I'm sorry we don't have the information you wanted. We met with the staff of the Committee yesterday to discuss possible areas and the focus of this hearing. We did not think that was going to be one of the areas, Had we known so, we could have possibly made an effort to have that information for you, but we will have that information for you, I will assure. Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, I'd say that's fair because we have just found out who these gentlemen are. I did not have the information, until you told us, as to what Mr. Monroe's responsibilities were. Obviously we have more work to do. The CHAIRMAN. I think the witnesses' answers are responsive and they have said that they'll go back and provide that information. If they bad known about it before right now they would have had it prepared for you now, so I think we have to leave it at that, Senator BOND. One final thing. Our staff asked that you bring all the information that you had on this matter. You did not withbold anything in your possession that relates to this inquiry; is that fair? Mr. MONROE. Absolutely not, Senator. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, could I make an inquiry? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator SARBANES. Does the Committee have other FBI reports of interviews that were done in Little Rock with respect to this matter? Senator BOND. Yes. Brantley Buck was interviewed in Little Rock. The CHAIRmAN. Is there anyone on this side who seeks recognition? Senator Dodd. Senator DODD. Dr. Hirsch, you have been a pathologist since 1969; is that correct? Dr. HIRSCH. Longer than that. I've been a full-time career forensic pathologist since 1969. Senator DODD. It's fair to say you've been involved in literally hundreds of cases involving homicides? Dr. HIRSCH. Thousands. Senator DODD. Thousands. And Mr. Monroe and Mr. Colombell, bow long have you been with the agency, the Bureau? Mr. MONROE. I've been with the Bureau about 29 years. Mr. COLOMBELL. I've been an agent 30 years. Senator DODD. Is it fair to assume you've been involved in hundreds if not thousands, of investigations? Mr. MONROE. Mr. Colombell more than myself, but those rough figures are probably in the ballpark, sir. Senator DODD. It's your conclusion, as has been stated, that Mr. Foster committed suicide. There's no doubt in any of your minds ,!about that? Mr. MONROE. No doubt. Mr. COLOMBELL. No doubt at all. Senator DODD. While I understand there may be-and I presume .,this is true in any investigation-things that could have been done a bit better with 20/20 hindsight, but in your professional capacity 56 I want to use the word "significant"---were there any "signifi- cant" irregularities in the Park Service Police's investigation? Mr. MONROE,. Your question, Senator, bad to do with the Park Police and the response that I have to that is we do not know of any significant irregularities. Senator DODD. Mr. Colombell? Mr. COLOMBELL. Senator, I do not know of any. Senator DODD. Dr. Hirsch, in your examination of the Park Service's handling of this matter, did you encounter any significant irregularities in how they conducted their work? Dr. HIRSCH. The objective evidence, photographic evidence, principally provided to me, which is the work product of the Park Police, was adequate to give me an opportunity to form an independ. ent opinion and make an independent evaluation about the observations at the scene of Mr. Foster's death. From that standpoint, their work was adequate. Could it have been better? Of course. My work can be better, too, but the objective documentation, which is the important thing to me, I just don't have to take somebody else's word for it is there and it unequivocally establishes very important features about the investigation of Mr. Foster's death. Senator DODD. You said, Mr. Monroe, in your testimony that you questioned approximately 125 people including friends, family, and White House colleagues and there was documentary photographic evidence as well as the autopsy report; analyzed blood, DNA, fin. gerprints, handwriting tests were performed, and a forensic pathology panel was convened. The second question I have, has to do with whether or not, in your views, those of you who looked at this, was there any correlation between Mr. Foster's tragic suicide and Whitewater?
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(22:20:17) Ms. HANSON. The answer is I did not do that personally. I asked, repeatedly, for the transcript. Senator BOXER. If I just I might say---I mean, this point troubles me greatly, because you knew how just important it was you, yourself, knew how important it was that Mr. Altman didn't give the whole truth to the Committee and, the fact is, you wanted to fix this problem up. A day goes by, 2 days. goes by, count the weekends. Telling the truth to a Committee is important. This is about as important as it gets, in my opinion. Maybe it's because I happen to have been sitting there, but this goes to lots of other hearings, we've held where Members of the other party were a little bit on the defensive. The fact, that we must know the truth, is a bipartisan issue for us here. You wanted to correct the testimony and your big excuse, that I hear coming back to me over and over again, is I couldn't get the transcript. Ms. HANSON. There is no other way that I could correct thetestimony. There were 41/2 hours where 182 Senator BOXER. You are missing my point. I agree that you needed the transcript. What I cannot see-I'm putting myself in your shoes, the best I can, and I've been in a position of being in elected office, being a staffer for a Congressperson, being a press person all kinds of thin things. If you want to get a transcript and, as the Chief Counsel of the Treasury, you can't figure out a way to get it, I just have a real terrible problem with that. If your personal secretary couldn't get it, or your assistant couldn't get it, I think you 8 should have gotten a new one. I have a hard time coming to grips with that fact. So, I would just say this I think, again, that the hour's late, you're under a lot of stress and strain and I Ms. HANsON. I will tell you, Senator Boxer, in the future I will always make sure I personally it, that I get the transcript, 7 see to it, because that was clearly a problem here. As I stated Senator BOXER. You interrupted me in the middle of what I was trying to get to. My train of thought was that I know this has been very difficult for you, awfully 11 difficult for you. I would just, respectfully, suggest, at your level of expertise, intelligence, you are articulate, you are educated, you have great experience, that I still have a hard time understanding why, when you knew Mr. Altman didn't tell the full truth, you didn't get in a cab and get the dam transcript, if it was that important to you-and it should have been that important to you. Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to keep on going in this fashion. You can see how I feel about it. I am not satisfying with the fact that we did not get the corrections, we should have gotten, in a timely fashion. I'm sorry your lawyer told you not to be involved in it anymore, but I have a question about that, too, Mr. Chairman. Here is Mr. Altman, whose testimony was not complete, and now, all of a sudden, because of another situation, you're told to forget about it. You can't do anything about fixing up his testimony when you, and you alone, knew it. You went to the White House, you sat there with those folks, you wrote Mr. Altman a memo, although you didn't recall writing it, and you were the one who had the information. It's very odd to me, that your attorney would tell you, that you have no more responsibility to make sure that the Senate of the United States of America knows the whole truth. It's really-maybe it's perception, maybe it's the way you view the world, but I have a-I feel a little uncomfortable about all this. I don't feel anything happened to injure the people of the United States of America by what you did, or didn't do, but I just do not approve of the way this matter was handled in terms of giving us the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I also do not approve of using, as an excuse press leaks to discuss very confidential information which I think only fed into the whole cycle of more press leaks and more stories. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Bond. Ms. HANSON. Could I respond to that, please? The CHAIRMAN. If you do it briefly, you know-go ahead.
August 4, 1994 - Part 9
(18:25:46) Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Part of my job, sir, is to anticipate press inquiries and I believe that it was fair to say there would be one. Senator HATCH. Right, but up to that point there had been no press inquiries? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No, but certainly part of my job is to anticipate them. Senator HATCH. I understand. Ellen Kulka testified earlier this week that Stephens had been hired nearly one month earlier. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I don't know when he was hired. Senator HATCH. You hadn't had any press inquiries up to that point, though, is my point. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Not up to that point. Senator HATCH. During your deposition, you were asked whether you'd contacted the White House press office following your call with Mr. Steiner in order to alert them of these "anticipated press calls" and you admitted that you had not; right? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Not immediately but I wouldn't necessarily do it immediately, I run into them several times during the day. Senator HATCH. Right, I understand. From Mr. Steiner's testimony, it really doesn't appear that you were very concerned about the press calls. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Oh, no, I was concerned in finding out the information of how he had come to be hired, anticipating the calls. I'm not suggesting, sir, that my anger was about the press calls. My anger was real and it was about the fact that he was chosen. Those are two separate matters. What I needed to know was the information anticipating the press calls and that's what I got from Mr. Steiner and that ended the phone conversation. Senator HATCH. I think you made that position clear before. According to Mr. Steiner's testimony, you asked him how Mr. STEPHENS. had been hired; right? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Yes, sir. Senator HATCH. Mr. Steiner testified that after he told you how Mr- Stephens had been hired, you told him that Mr. Stephens should be disqualified for conflict of interest and that you have testified that, you basically said this when you gave your deposition. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I know I believe that he has a conflict of interest, Sir, yes. 402 Senator HATCH. That was your point, yes. As I mentioned earlier this Committee has uncovered at least three separate pieces of evi- dence that you urged Treasury officials to attempt to fire Mr. Stephens. The Altman testimony, the Hanson testimony and the Steiner Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Sir, that's where I have a question, sir. I have not seen the Altman testimony and I'm not certain that in the testimony of Ms. Hanson it was clear when she talked to Mr. Steiner or whether he confirmed that at all. I'm not familiar with the Altman testimony. I would point out, sir, that this was looked at by the Special Counsel, Mr. Fiske, and he found no criminal conduct. The Office of Government Ethics found no ethical misconduct. Senator HATCH. That's not my point. My point is that we feel we've uncovered three different pieces of evidence from the three of them that you -wanted Mr. Stephens fired. Now, Mr. Stephanopoulos, let me just- Senator KERRY. They're not technically different, Senator. They're built on each other. Senator HATCH. I understand. Senator KERRY. Don't just dismiss that. They're not three separate pieces so let's have the record be clear. Senator HATCH. Well, let's look at them then later when you have time. I think they're pretty clear. I would like you to read from page 2 of the Steiner diary transcript where it begins "after Howell Rains." Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Sir, it's not my diary. Senator HATCH. It's not your diary, but I'd like you to read it. "After Howell Rains" and just read down through the sentence which ends with "stupid and improper" because this is what he says. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. It is not my diary. I'm not going to read it. Senator HATCH. I just want to see if we can refresh your recollection with this. If you can't say you don't Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I'm looking at it, I've heard it several times. I'm not going to read it. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch, I don't know that he should be expected to read somebody else's diary. I think he can read it off a piece of paper to himself or you can state it to him. Senator HATCH. Let me just read it. "After Howell Rain from The New York Times called to say that they were going to write a brutal editorial, RA decided to recuse himself Harold and George then called to say that BC was furious. They also asked how Jay Stephens, the former USA, had been hired to be outside counseling in this case. Simply outrageous that RTC had hired him. But even. more amazing when George then suggested to me that we needed to find a way to get rid of him. Persuaded George that firing him would be incredibly stupid and improper." Now, let me just ask you that, during your deposition when you were asked about whether you told Mr. Steiner to get rid of or fire Mr. Stephens, you told the Committee "I just don't remember." Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. As I repeated today, sir, yes. Senator HATCH. Given the testimony this week and after you 've had an opportunity to read that and that's why I wanted you to 403 read it. I wasn't trying to embarrass you, I just wanted you to read the darned thing. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS, It's no embarrassment, sir. Senator HATCH. OK, Let me ask you the question again. Did you ask the--did you ask Mr. Steiner whether the RTC or anyone else could fire or get rid of Mr. Stephens? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I don't remember saying that at all, sir. Senator HATCH. Is it possible you did? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Again, that is not my memory of the conversation. Senator HATCH. So as far as you're concerned Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. That's not the testimony I gave to this Committee.
Whitewater Hearings August 1, 1994 - Part 2
(12:00:29)(Beginning of tape #10057) Others have testified that the reason they did this was because of an impending press leak. Does the RTC usually brief people named in criminal referrals if they think there's a chance that there may be a press leak? Is this normal procedure? (12:00:50) Mr. ROELLE. No, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Why did we do it this time? Mr. RoELLE. I have no idea sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. I'm still a little confused. There bad been no press inquiry about this criminal referral that named the Clintons. And there was no evidence of a press leak. By that standard, the RTC could tell anybody anything they want, so long as they say there is a possibility that there may be a press leak. Is that right? Mr. ROELLE. No, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Has there ever been another case where the RTC gave an i.e., heads-up, in criminal referrals because they thought there might be a press 'leak? Mr. ROELLE. No, sir, not that I'm aware of Senator FAIRCLOTH. This was an all-time first, to notify the Clintons? Mr. ROELLE. Pardon me? Senator FAIRcLOTH. This was an all-time first, to notify the White House? Mr. ROELLE. As far as I know, yes, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Mr. Ryan, have you heard a report prepared by Mississippi attorney Stanley Huggins, known as either the Huggins report or the Garish report? Mr. RYAN. I believe I've heard of that, yes. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Do you know whether or not the RTC or the OTS has that report? (12:02:20)(End of tape #10056) Mr. RYAN. I believe we do, yes. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Has anyone from the White House or one of the President's personal attorneys contacted you about the report? Mr. RYAN. No, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Has Robert Fiske contacted you about the report? Mr. RYAN, I don't know. We provided a great deal of information Mr. Fiske. I'm not sure whether that particular report was 28 among the information. I think it probably was, but I just don't know. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Could you provide the Committee and us with a copy of that report? Mr. RYAN. I think it goes beyond the scope and might compromise any particular action that the RTC might take. Senator FAIRCLOTH. A report prepared by a Memphis attorney would go beyond the scope of what the Senate is looking at? Mr. RYAN. I believe that report deals with the substantive matters that are under review by Mr. Fiske and by our office with respect to the possibility of bringing an actionable claim. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Have you seen the editorial from this morning's Wall Street Journal, entitled, "Who is Jack Ryan?"? Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. I read it with a great deal of interest. I was curious myself. [Laughter.] Senator FAIRCLOTH. I thought it might be of interest to you. [Laughter.] Mr. Ryan, that editorial asks some good questions that I'd like to ask you now. Mr. RYAN. Sure. Senator FAIRCLOTH. First, April Briselow, an RTC attorney, said in a tape-recorded phone call to Jean Lewis, an RTC investigator who has been taken off the Madison Guaranty investigation, that you and Ms. Kulka would like to be able to say that Whitewater did not cause a loss to Madison. Ms. Lewis responded that the Whitewater account alone might show losses in excess of $100,000. 1 appreciate the remark you made in your opening statement. You essentially said that, ultimately, you should be judged by what you do, not by what you say. That's hard to argue with. But, specifically, did you ever say anything to anyone along the lines of you would like to be able to say that Whitewater did not cause a loss to Madison, that statement or anything close to it? Mr. RYAN, Senator, I don't recall ever having said anything like that. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Not even close to it? Never alluded to such a thing? Mr. RYAN. Not that I recall, Senator FAIRCLOTH, The editorial-do I have time for one more question? The CHAIRMAN. If it's a follow-up to this and it will be brief. I mean, the light's on, but I don't want to cut you off if you want to finish a point. I'm not going to do that to anybody.
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:00:58)(Tape #10059 begins) My beliefs were based on his discussion that he would rely on the advice and recommendations given to him by Mr. Ryan and myself He was taking an unnecessary potential hit. Senator DomENici. There's an understandable reason for pressure to be on that person who recuses himself Ms. KULKA. I wasn't commenting on that, sir, and I haven't analyzed that. Senator DOMENICI. Let me ask, were you part of the briefing team for Roger Altman before he came to testify before us? Ms. KuLKA. Yes, sir. Senator DOMENICI. Could you tell us what date that was? Ms. KuLKA. There were a couple of dates. I think there may have been a short meeting at the end of the preceding week, and I know there were at least two meetings. I believe they were late Monday night and late Tuesday night of the week in which the bearing was actually held. Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Ryan, you were part of those, too? Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. Senator DOMENICI. Do either of you know now or were you told when Mr. Altman came to testify before us---even though he had a note, which we have seen, that indicated what was talked about at the February 2, 1994, meeting, and one point on it was his recusing himself-do any of you have any information as to why he didn't tell us when he came before us on February 24, 1994? Has anything been said to you about that, any of you? Mr. RYAN. Not to me. Ms. KuLKA. No, sir. Senator DOMENICI. Did you understand at any point, Ms. Kulka, based on his conversations with you, that he was going to recuse himself'.? Ms. KULKA. No, sir, I did not know what be was going to do. Senator DOMENICI. He never indicated to you that be was? Ms. KULKA. No, sir. Senator DOMENICI. To you, Mr. Ryan? Mr. RYAN. No. As a matter of fact, be indicated he was not. Senator DOMENICI. Did be tell you where he got pressure from Pot to do that? He did not. Senator DOMENICI. Do you know who he talked to before be told that? Mr Ryan. No. No I don't. 80 Senator DomENici. When Mr. Altman came before us, before the Senate Committee, he indicated that the principal subject matter of the February 2, 1994, briefing did not include a discussion recusal. (15:03:30) (End of tape #10058) Are you familiar enough with that meeting to tell whether you remember it differently? Mr. Ryan. Are you referring to the meeting at the White House? Senator DomENici. Yes. Do you know anything about it them, or from any sources? Mr. RYAN. I know' nothing about it, other than what I've been told. Senator DOMENici. How about you, Ms. Kulka? Ms. Kulka. That's the same case for me, sir. Senator DomENici. When he came back, he did not discuss you what took place? Ms. Kulka. They did not discuss that it took place. Senator DomENici. Much less, what. Ms. Kulka. That's correct. Senator DOMENICI. I know we've covered this one way, in a sense, but I just want to offer my own observations. Some have been saying, "Well so what?" Even if all this insider information some of which should not have occurred, but even if it did, I guess White House Counselor-he says, in a basketball term, "No harm, no foul. " From the standpoint of violating a confidentiality, is it required, in your opinion, Mr. Roelle, that there be proven-that it actually' be proven that the confidential information was acted upon, or is it not a breach of confidentiality and ethics, as you know it, merely to divulge confidentialities? Mr. ROELLE. In the past today, Senator I have tried to refrain from making comments about what is legal in terms of criminality or what the legal interpretation of statutes regarding conflicts of interest have been because I don't believe I'm qualified. I will only say that criminal referrals are highly sensitive matters. They should not , in had judgment, be discussed outside of the agency. Rarely are they discussed, to my knowledge, unless it is with the FBI, the Justice Department, or another agency that is working with you in the processing of those criminal referrals.
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(22:00:50) Ms. HANSON. First of all, I disagree with that characterization Senator KERRY. Let me read the letter of March 2, 1994, to you, Dear Senator Riegle, I testified before your Committee, last Thursday, in connection with the semiannual oversight hearings on the RTC. There was a discussion, as you remember, of a meeting which I -had with representatives of the White House. As I indicated, no nonpublic information was provided to that meeting on any aspect of Madison Guaranty. That's not accurate. The next paragraph Ms. HANsON. Sir. 176 Senator KERRY. Senator Bond Ms. HANSON. Could I answer that? If you're going to tell there are inaccuracies in this letter, then, I think I should have the opportunity to give an explanation. The CHAIRMAN. You should. Here's the problem we're running into. You've been on the stand 5 hours now. It's 10 p.m. There are questions Senator KERRY. I don't want to raise a question. I think it's un- fair to her, the Administration, or anybody to raise a question -not answered. I really don't want to do that. I also don't want to take too long- Senator DAMATO. In fairness to the witness The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry, that letter's there, You've read part of it. Why don't you give your response and, then, I want to make a recommendation as to bow I think we might try to conclude this evening. Senator KERRY. Let me leave the final part of this. The last paragraph reads: But I have learned, today, of two conversations which dictate place between Treasury staff and White House personnel in this matter. Again, that is not correct. I think you knew at the time it wasn't correct., because your own testimony has indicated that you had the prior conversations and wrote the memo to Mr. Altman himself. Ms. HANSON. Sir, if I might, please--- Senator KERRY. Absolutely. That's exactly what we want. Ms. HANSON. I have testified, under oath, now numerous times on this matter. I'm a lawyer. I have a clear recollection of having spoken with Mr. Altman. I did not recall it at the time I did these questions. At the time the letter, the March 2, 1994, letter, was sent, and I read it, I didn't draft it, but I read it, Mr. Altman's recollection, that he bad just learned about them, was consistent with mine. I later learned-I later recalled that I had spoken with him about it. I didn't recall it at the time the letter was written. As I said that's part of the difficulty in trying to do things in a piecemeal fashion. I also could, sir, in response to your statement that there was a statement in the first paragraph of the letter that was wrong, that says no nonpublic information was furnished Senator KERRY, At that time, it was not public. Ms. HANSON. I understood that sentence, as I read it, to relate to the substantive underlying civil investigation of the Madison civil matter. That's what I understood it to say. That was correct, because there was no substantive information on the underlying Madison civil investigation. Senator KERRY. We're going back. I don't want to abuse this process. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I thank you. I think it's very important to hammer away at this, to try to clarify it, because this is central to all of our concerns, and I want to make sure you have adequate opportunity to address it. The CHAIRMAN. It's a very important predicate to tomorrow's witnesses. I mean, I think that's been made clear on both sides. Let me just say to my colleagues, I'd like to see if we can't arrive at an understanding as to how we can finish ton' lit. The witness has been there a long time, and I think it's tough to be there when 177 you're facing off against a large number of people. That's the nature of things. You've made your points and you've held up very well, which is to your credit. I'd like to see if we can't finish up no longer than a half hour from now. I don't know that it should take that long. I don't want to be arbitrary. Senator DAmato has asked to next. I've talked to Senator Bennett.
August 2, 1994 - Part 8
(19:20:25) Mr. ALTMAN. Well, only 3 weeks passed between the beginning and the end, and it wasn't an easy decision. I should have done it at the beginning, but I don't think it's surprising to have taken 3 weeks on a relatively complex decision like that. Senator ROTH. Mr. Altman, you testified in your deposition that the White House staff did not have a position on the issue of your recusal; is that correct? Mr. ALTMAN. I think what I said was that no one asked me not to recuse, no one told me it was unacceptable, no one said please don't do it. I believe that the chronology that Mr. Cutler released based on his interviews of all of the participants was such that they all said it was understood that it was my decision to make it and it was a personal decision. Senator ROTH. Now, in Margaret Williams' deposition, she states that she told you at this meeting, and I quote: I said, Wen, if you're going to accept whatever recommendations they give you, why should you recuse. And then I kind of launched into this thing about everybody in the world was recusing and you know you're a person of integrity plus you're going to take the recommendations of staff anyway, so why bother, Do you recall this statement being made by Ms. Williams? Mr. ALTMAN. I did not recall that until I saw it, I think in Mr. Cutler's chronology, but she may well have said that. Senator ROTH. And Jean Hanson stated in her deposition about this issue that Mr. Nussbaum, in your presence and Ms. Hanson's, argued that a fairer result would be obtained if Altman did not recuse himself and Altman agreed to consider the issue overnight. She goes on, and I quote: I recall Mr. Nussbaum saying that he thought that if Mr. Altman did not recuse himself, that it would impose discipline on the process to obtain a fairer result and I recall Mr. Altman saying he would think about it overnight and Mr. Nussbaum saying that's all we can ask. Do you recall such a statement by Mr. Nussbaum? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't precisely recall it, but be might have said it, but what I did say again in the meeting, and I remember directing myself to Mr. Nussbaum, was that the RTC General Counsel would be making the decisions on this matter. And I said that unequivocally, and I don't think there is any question but that they understood it. Senator ROTH. It does sound to me that at least two members of the White House staff bad strong opinions about whether you should disqualify yourself from the Madison Guaranty referrals. Mr. ALTMAN. But, Senator, I think, if I can say, the most important point is that I never played any role for that meeting or after that meeting at any time in any decisions relating to Madison. So 477 the meeting had no effect on my role relative to Madison. I had reinvolved myself and I stayed removed. Senator ROTH. Let me turn to the RTUs written response to Banking Committee questions following the February 24 hearing stating it is the policy of RTC not to disclose criminal referrals or information about their preparation on an institution- specific basis. Mr. Altman, are you aware of that policy? Mr. ALTMAN. I'm aware of it now, Senator. Senator ROTH. Were you not aware of it earlier? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, I don't know if I was aware precisely of the policy, but I agree with it. So I understand it and I accept it. Senator ROTH. Were you aware of the fact that under this RTC policy there were no exceptions, including press? Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir, I wasn't. Senator ROTH. Wouldn't it he appropriate as the acting CEO for you to be acquainted with such policies? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I testified earlier today, when we started, that my full-time job is Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and my role at the RTC was a very limited role. We bad senior staff. Senator ROTH. But you were the acting CEO, Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, but I bad a very limited role. I never bad any decisionmaking role relative to any investigation or any case, so wasn't exposed in any way to cases and investigations.
August 4, 1994 - Part 2
(10:40:32) Senator D'AMATO. Let me say, if I might, Mr. Chairman, and I do not think we want this to be a back and forth. Number one, we are limited by the scope as it relates to that which was laid down and passed in the Senate Resolution. Second, though, and I think this is fair, we had intended to go into the subject of the handling of the documents, and we would have been looking into the handling of the documents. In fact, recent revelations indicate that they have become even more important, those documents being the Whitewater papers that were found in Mr. Foster's office. What happened? How were they handled? The process. Unfortunately, Mr. Fiske has not completed that phase and has asked to delay our investigation and public hearings on the subject. It was supposed to be part of these hearings. So I think that is what Senator Domenici is tying into. Senator KERRY. I agree with that. I agree with that, but that is the protection of the integrity of the process. Senator D'AMATO. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am going to ask that-we have discuss ed this now. Every Member is going to have time to raise, in their pe- riod, if they want to make a comment on it, and I want to finish with the questioning. We have got Members waiting to ask questions that have been waiting a long time. So, Senator Faircloth, I would ask you then to keep the questions within what we can properly cover now, and let's restart your time, here to where it was, and let you finish. 299 Senator FAIRCLOTH. Mr. Chairman, I want to start out by saying, I thank you for the fairness with which you have conducted the meeting, and I respect your judgment in this. But, Senator Kerry, if you are concerned that the public is having questions and the audience about where we are headed and why we are headed there and in what way, you are absolutely right. And we have probably opened up a lot more questions than we have answered, and they are going to expect us to be answering them. Ms. Williams, you testified that you were assigned to be part of a so-called Whitewater response team that was set up in 1993 when the first press stories on Whitewater began to appear. Could you please describe who decided that there should be a Whitewater response team at the White House and what was the function of the team? Ms. WILLIAMS. First of all, Senator, the White House Whitewater response team was set up in January 1994. That is my understanding. That is the first time that I was involved in participating in any such team. Second, it was put together by Mr. McLarty who delegated to Mr. Ickes the responsibility of focusing on a coordinated response to Whitewater press inquiries. Senator FAIRCLOTH. How often did it meet and who were the participants? MS. WILLIAMS. It met for a while every day. At the height of the press inquiries, it met every day. The participants were Mr. Ickes, Ms. Caputo, Press Secretary to Ms. Clinton, Mark Geron, the Director of Communications, Mr. Eggleston, I believe, David Dreyer from the Communications Department, those were initially the Senator FAIRCLOTH. Well, why did you wait until January to put it together when Whitewater was an issue before the Banking Committee back in early November? Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, sir, since I did not put it together, I do not believe that you should direct that question to me, but let me say that my recollection is since we were responding to press inquiries primarily, our participation in such discussions around press inquiries heightened as the press inquiries heightened, so in October and November and December, to the best of my recollection, there were not lots and lots of press inquiries. They were starting. In January, they seemed to be at full speed ahead, I think, so I believe that we started it in response to the press inquiries at that time. Senator FAIRCLOTH. All right. Ms. Williams, why did you ask whether the briefing that Mr. Alt- man provided on the operation of the statute of limitations in the Madison case should be provided to Mr. Kendall, the President's personal lawyer?
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(22:40:28) The impartiality provisions of the standards of conduct may not be relied upon by an employee as the basis for recusing himself from a matter because he simply does not wish to be involved or to exert the effort required. Under the standards of conduct, employees are expected to per-form their duties fully, unless there is a reason that their participation in a matter will result in an actual conflict, including an inability to act impartially or will result in an appearance of conflict significantly detrimental to the public's legitimate perception of the fairness of the governmental processes involved. What the OGE is saying, in simple language, is that a public official has a duty to do his or her duty. And that official has no right to retreat behind ethics rules- when those rules do not apply-to avoid doing his or her job. It would be improper to do so. I want to repeat that. What the OGE is saying in simple language is that a public official has a duty to do his or her duty and that official 472 has no right to retreat behind ethics rules when those rules do not apply to avoid doing his or her job. It would be improper. It would be unethical to do so. The public policy issue raised by what Mr. Altman said regarding a possible recusal was not merely an academic one or matter of some high falutin principle. It was then a matter of immediate concern to the Administration. Just a day before this February 2nd meeting, a nominee for the Chair of the FDIC, Ricki Tigert, had been asked by certain Senators on this Committee to agree to commit in advance to recuse herself on any issues connected to Madison or Whitewater. She was asked to do so for the stated reason that she knew the Clintons and was being nominated by the President. Ms. Tigert had taken the position that, if she were confirmed and asked to address Madison./Whitewater-related questions, she would consult the appropriate agency ethics officer and follow his or her advice. The inquiring Senators indicated that Ms. Tigert's response was not sufficient. They told her if she would not agree to recuse herself in advance, regardless of whether she was legally or ethically required to do so, they would block her nomination. At the time of the February 2 meeting, I and others in the White House believed it was important for the Executive Branch to resist efforts to force nominees to agree in advance to recuse themselves in situations where recusal was not legally or ethically required. We felt that those seeking Ms. Tigert's commitment to recuse herself were tampering with the agency adjudicative process. So when Mr. Altman said, sort of out of the blue without any advance notice, that he was inclined to remove himself from the RTC investigation, without a legal or ethical basis for doing so, I felt he might create an unfortunate precedent for our Administration and future Administrations and would make a shambles of our position in the Tigert nomination. As White House Counsel, as an Executive Branch official, I was concerned about what Mr. Altman was considering doing. But I did not tell him to remain in the matter, This is what I said to him. I said that if he was legally or ethically required to recuse himself, he should do so promptly. That's the first thing I said. Obviously, if Mr. Altman had a disqualifying financial interest, or if he believed that he could not decide the matter impartially, or if his continuing to act created an appearance of favoritism within the meaning of the relevant ethics code, any of which was a ground requiring recusal, it would be necessary for him to remove himself. But he had already told me that he received ethics advice that he did not have a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself So I went on to say, that if recusal was not legally or ethically required, he