Advanced Search
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(15:55:46) Three independent investigations have addressed these questions. First, we had the results of the legal investigation by the Independent Counsel, Mr. Fiske. All issues involved in his investigation were fully and thoroughly investigated including a review of my testimony -before this Committee. And we are all familiar with his conclusions. There was also the report of the Office of Government Ethics, which Secretary Bentsen released on Sunday. This concluded that there bad been no unethical activities on the part of any Treasury personnel, The Office of Government Ethics is an independent body. As with Mr. Fiske, it had access to all documents and took testimony under oath from all those involved, including your witnesses. There is also the report of Mr. Cutler, White House Counsel, on the question of any unethical behavior by White House staff, He concluded there was none. These investigations have confirmed that the Clinton Administration did not interfere in any aspect of the Madison Guaranty case. There is no evidence, Mr. Chairman-I repeat-no evidence that either the criminal or civil aspects were compromised, delayed, or altered in any way. Simply none. I believe that the conclusions of these three separate investigations are absolutely correct. And I ask the Committee to bear in mind the larger context of my involvement in the handling of the Madison matter by the RTC. Most importantly, I never made any decisions of any kind with respect to the Madison case. I was committed, as I told the White House staff and others, to have the RTC General Counsel, Ellen Kulka, make whatever determination was necessary with respect to any civil claims arising from Madison. My meeting with the White House staff on February 2 was cleared by both Treasury General Counsel and the Designated Treasury Ethics Officer. I obtained two written ethics opinions stating that my recusal was not required, and I recused myself from the Madison matter on February 25 without ever having made any decision in that case. Second, let me turn to what I believe is the most important issue between this Committee and me, namely my testimony before you on February 24. Mr. Chairman, I do not have perfect recall, and I may have heard or understood questions in a way that was not intended by the Senator asking the question. And if I did so, I sincerely apolologize to all Members of the Committee. But I do want to be clear. In no way did I intend to mislead or not to provide complete and 407 forthright answers. I have too much respect for this Committee, for our system of Government and for the need for full and forthright communications between the Executive and the Legislative Branches. Let me add here that I understand how a reasonable person reading my testimony and listening to all the testimony which has come before this Committee could believe I was not as forthcoming as I should have been. The burden is mine to explain that I was doing the best I could at the time and I intend to do that today. Let me turn to describing the interaction between the Clinton Administration and the RTC. First, when Mr. Casey resigned as CEO in March 1993, the Administration had only taken office 5 or 6 weeks beforehand and had not yet chosen its nominee for this position. Indeed, only two U.S. Treasury officials had even been confirmed, Secretary Bentsen and me.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:00:39) Secretary Bentsen asked me to assume this position until a permanent CEO was nominated and confirmed. As others will attest I neither sought nor wanted this assignment, but I accepted it because there was no one else. And during the discussions about my appointment, there was never any mention by anyone of Madison Guaranty. In June of last year we submitted a nomination for permanent Chairperson of the RTC. Our expectation was that he would be promptly confirmed, and I could leave the agency. Our nominee was a Republican, and an active one. He was well qualified for this position and the Administration supported his nomination throughout the congressional session, but the nomination was not taken up by the Senate. After Congress completed its work last fall, be withdrew his name from further consideration. Let me make an observation, if I may, about this situation. The Administration nominated an active Republican for the top RTC job. That is not consistent with trying to exert undue control over the agency or any of its investigations. When I became RTC Chairman, the agency was managed on a day-to- day basis by its two senior vice presidents, Bill Roelle and Lamar Kelly. Almost all members of the RTC staff reported to one or the other. These two men were appointees of Mr. Casey, who in turn had been appointed by President Bush. They were thoroughly professional and they were retained throughout all of 1993. Each then left at his own initiative to rejoin the FDIC. Retaining the two senior vice presidents whom we inherited is also not consistent with trying to exert political control over the agency. Moreover, these two individuals bad no motivation to show favoritism on Madison Guaranty, and I do not believe that they did so, During my tenure at the RTC, I was also serving as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. In that role, I was deeply involved in policy initiatives ranging from passage of the President's economic plan to cochairing the U.S.-Japan framework negotiations. These responsibilities permitted me limited time for RTC matters. My involvement there typically related to broad public issues, like the long struggle last year to pass the RTC Completion Act. At no time, Mr. Chairman, did I ever ask to be briefed, nor was I briefed, on any investigation or the status or the outlook for any case, not once. My role was to provide general oversight at twice 408 senior staff meetings. These involved 8 to 10 RTC officials, and they were the only RTC employees with whom I ever had any personal contact of any kind. Last fall, Bill Roelle or Jean Hanson or both, advised me because of impending publicity, that the RTC was considering referring the Madison matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, and that the referral could mention the President and First Lady in some capacity. I had never asked to be involved in Madison son-related matters or any other RTC investigation. Indeed, until that time, I had known nothing at 11 about Madison except through the press. And, as I said. I believe they advised me because publicity was imminent. I was also advised that such referral decisions are typically made at the regional office level. I responded by saying that this referral decision should be made in exactly the same fashion as in any other case. If that meant the regional office level, then that's where the decision should be made. There were no further conversations with me on that subject. ultimately learned through the press that the case indeed had been referred to the Justice Department.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:10:50) On February 2, Jean Hanson and I went to the White House. She attended because, as Treasury's senior lawyer, she had been helping me on various RTC legal matters, and the subject matter was inherently legal. She saw nothing wrong with providing this information to the White House. I later learned that she also bad the good judgment to check the ethical issues with Dennis Foreman, Treasury's Chief Ethics Officer, who also saw nothing improper. Mr. Foreman, I might add, is a career appointee who preceded the Clinton Administration. In other words, Mr. Chairman, Treasury's General Counsel and its Senior Ethics Officer both approved this meeting. And as you know, the Office of Government Ethics has also rendered its verdict on that meeting, which is a favorable one. The meeting lasted no more than 20 minutes. Initially, Ms. HanSon and I described the generic procedures which the RTC used in this or any other case facing an expiring statute of limitations. We recited the three alternatives, following talking points which she had prepared. And this Committee, of course, has a copy of those. This was the total information provided which related to the RTC investigation of Madison, We provided no information on the status or outlook for the case. That would have been impossible because we possessed none. The Office of Government Ethics, which took testimony under oath from all participants. said in its report 410 that "nothing suggests that this part of the -meeting involved a disclosure of nonpublic information." Toward the end of the February 2 meeting, I also raised the question of recusal. And let me now address that. Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, the issue of recusal is a false one. Whether I recused my self or not would have had no impact on the investigation, none whatsoever. The facts are that I began thinking about recusal around February 1. And that on February 25, 1 did recuse myself. No matter came to me for decision on any case including Madison in that period. Moreover, prior to recusing myself, I was de facto recused. Deci. sions on cases never came to me at any time during my RTC tenure. And I had specifically reaffirmed to the RTC General Couns el before the February 2 meeting that she would be making all deci- sions related to Madison, not me. Indeed, I had told her that more than once, and with others present, and as you know, she testified before you to that effect. On February 2, when I informed the White House that I was thinking about recusal, I told them that it was irrelevant because the RTC General Counsel would be making all decisions on Madison, not me. The Office of Government Ethics confirms my de facto recusal. It states in its report that "recusal is just another word for nonparticipation " and I had already chosen nonparticipation. Nine days after the February 2 meeting, Congress passed a 2-year extension of the statute of limitations on Madison Guaranty9 days later. That made recusal entirely moot. My term as RTC Chairman was to expire and did expire on March 30. And with such additional time, it was almost certain that the RTC would not be making any Madison decisions by my March 30 termination date. In retrospect, I perhaps should have recused myself right off the bat. Some of this controversy would have been avoided. But before February 2, 1 had been advised that there was no legal or ethical requirement to recuse myself. I later receive two written opinions from ethics officers to that effect. Two written opinions
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:05:35) I do not believe I suggested that the White House be informed of any facts relating to this referral, but if Ms. Hanson did advise the White House of an impending press leak on it, I see nothing improper in that. Nor did the Office of Government Ethics. Mr. Roelle has testified that be advised me of a possible criminal referral as early as March 1993. 1 respect him, but I do not recall it. There have also been questions on press articles on Madison which I may have faxed to Mr. Nussbaum. He has said that he has no recollection of receiving them. I don't recall sending them either, but there would be nothing wrong with sending press articles to anyone. And there isn't a shred of evidence that I conveyed sensitive information, then or at any other time, to the White House. During our meeting at the White House on February 2, we conveyed no information on the facts, merits, or outlook for the case, or the statute of limitations decision. That would have been impossible -- that would have been impossible, because I bad no information on those matters. I never had such information on Madison or any other case and I do not have it today. The only information we provided which related to the case involved a description of the generic and procedural alternatives which face the RTC in any expiring statute of limitations situation, and indeed faced it in Madison. All of that information was in the public domain. It had previously been provided to representatives of the Congress upon request. And it was in the hands of the media. The Washington Times, for example, had already printed a summary of these procedural alternatives. During the months of December and January, there were, at least, 7 meetings or conversations between RTC officials and House and Senate staff, all requested by the latter. Three of these involved Senator D'Amato's staff. All of these centered around the statute of limitations issues and the supplying to Congress of documents related to Madison. Moreover, from December 1993 through February 1994, a series of congressional inquiries regarding the pursuit of civil claims aris- 409 ing from the Madison failure came directly to me. They included a letter on January 11 from 41 Republican Senators and a letter on January 25 from Senator DAmato and a letter from Congressman Leach. These urged the RTC to, in Senator DAmato's words: Take action to voluntarily seek agreements from potential parties to pre-initiated legal action. I can see no reason for further delay on your part. Please provide me with your conclusion immediately. The congressional inquiries directed to me, of course, required a response. Prior to receiving them, I was not familiar with the statute of limitations issues. I am not a lawyer and, for example, had never previously heard of a tolling agreement. To assist in preparing responses to these congressional inquiries, Ellen Kulka, the RTC General Counsel, briefed me on these issues. I learned that the RTC bad to make a decision by February 28. The alternatives were: No. 1, seeking a tolling agreement with the parties against whom a claim might be brought. No. 2, failing that, filing a claim in court, Or No. 3, concluding that no basis existed for pursuing a claim. This information together with the facts relating to the criminal referral was the sum total of information relating to Madison which was known to me. My responses to Members of Congress were very direct. We pledged an impartial process, a thorough review, and "if such claims do exist, the RTC will vigorously pursue all appropriate remedies using standard procedures in such cases which could include seeking agreements to toll the statute of limitations." With the volume of congressional and press inquiries rising, it seemed to me that, first, the White House should have the same information which was being provided to congressional staff and the press; and second, that it was appropriate to advise the White House of events which could affect its function. Those were my only motivations.
Washington Spotlight: Harriman Reports
The White House continues to explore all angles to end the Vietnam war. Ambassador-at-large Averell Harriman reports to the President & Dean Rusk on private talks he had in Moscow w/ Soviet leaders. Mr. Harriman held out little hope for peace from that source. LS South Lawn of White House. MS's - Secretary of State DEAN RUSK, Ambassador at Large W. AVERELL HARRIMAN and President LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON (LBJ) conferring in Oval Office.
New Firefighter Tested
The Air Force has developed a new fire truck that is capable of smothering fire in a burning plane within 10 seconds after it arrives at the scene. One of its turret jets throws a 1000 gallons of water foam from 230 feet away. High angle LS scene of fire, fire truck squelching flames with twin hose turrets mounted on cab. MS levers being raised, lowered. TLS - fire truck attacking flames. Rear view MS two operators in truck cab directing stream. MS fire fighters in white protective masks using fire hose & fire retardant on flames. MS/TLS - fire retardant shooting from nozzle. Emergency vehicles at scene.
Deep-Diving Sub A Success
With the mysterious ocean depths remaining as one of man's last unexplored frontiers, new research vessels are being developed. The Navy's Alvin is one of these & it makes a maiden dive 6,000 feet down off the coast of the Bahamas. TLS/MS - U.S. Navy Alvin submarine on deck of boat. TLS - USN Alvin submersible being lowered, submerged into ocean water. Underwater shots of Alvin maneuvering.
The "Square" Look: Here's What Paris Decrees for Fall
The summer in Paris has been unusually cold, but fashion designers have been staying ahead of the weather by unveiling their Fall coat & suit designs. The Square look is not for squares, but for the high-fashion conscious who like to stay ahead of the times and trends. MS - models in conservative, belt less fall fashions walking at small fashion show. MCU fashion designer drawing in notepad (fashion illustration), also has cigarette in hand. More MS - models in boxy coats, hats. Panning MCU three women in audience. MS model in bridal gown, train. MS/CUs model in extremely expensive evening dress marked with emeralds & diamonds, diamond-studded tiara on her head.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:15:34) Moreover, it isn't clear whether recusing oneself in the absence of such re- quirements is entirely appropriate either, and the Office of Govern- ment Ethics Report questions whether I ultimately made the right decision to recuse or instead had a duty to serve. I don't think that taking 3 weeks to make such a complex decision is all that surprising. But again, the important point is that I recused myself without ever having participated in any decisions on Madison. Not one decision. Let me address now the issues which have been raised about my February 24 testimony before this Committee. I have a deep respect for our system of Government, the role of the Congress, and the importance of testimony by the Executive Branch. Our system cannot function properly without honest communication among the three branches. It is the equivalent of a sacred trust. Now, I testified many times during my 4 years in the Carter ministration, and during my service in this Administration. And have always tried my best to testify in the most forthright way. realize that, in retrospect, my testimony of February 24 may appear too narrow or perhaps incomplete. I regret that that perception 411 and I apologize for it. But I want to emphasize that there was never any intent to--never any intent, Mr. Chairman-to mislead this Committee. I prepared for that testimony with 10 or 15 members of RTC and Treasury staff, and my answers were in line with the responses developed by that group. The relevant exchanges on Madison Guaranty that day consumed less than 10 minutes. I thought that my answers were responsive to the questions I was asked. Given an opportunity to do it all over again, I would have added more information, but my intention was to testify forthrightly, as I have always tried to do. And I hope I can reassure you of that today. Let me be quite specific about my testimony on February 24. Senator Gramm asked me if I, or any member of my staff, had any communication with the White House regarding Whitewater or Madison Guaranty. I answered that I bad one substantive contact. Senator Gramm asked me to describe the substance of that one contact. I described the February 2 meeting at the White House and the discussion about the generic procedures that the RTC would follow when a statute of limitations was about to expire, I did not mention the meetings between Ms. Hanson and others at the White House on September 24 and October 14 because I was not aware of them at the time of my testimony on February 24. On March 2, 1 week later, I received a call from Mr. Podesta of the White House. He asked me, in effect, about "the other two meetings." I had never beard of them and told him so and Mr. Cutler's chronology is clear on that point. I promptly called Ms. Hanson and Mr. Steiner who confirmed the existence of those two fall meetings, Neither challenged my statement to them that I'd not heard of them previously. I then prepared and sent a letter to the Chairman of this Committee indicating that I had just learned of two meetings in the fall, my impression that they related to press inquiries, and I wanted to expand the record accordingly. I believe that I also spoke by telephone to Senator Riegle before sending that letter. I wanted this Committee to have the new information immediately. I telephoned Senator Bond, who bad asked the original question. I also wanted to advise him immediately. We had a cordial conversation, and he thanked me for alerting him. Ms. Hanson testified yesterday that her discussion in September 1993 1 was at my request. I do not believe that to be the case. Recollections can differ, of course, especially on events that occurred 5 months earlier. There is nothing unusual in that. I just disagree with her recollection.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:53:00) Hearing resumes: The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume. Let me give an indication of where we are in terms of our situation on the Senate Floor. We've completed one roll call vote. We'll have another one shortly and we'll have to excuse ourselves for that purpose. I'm going to bold off until all or most of the Members have had a chance to return in order to play the videotape. I think we should wait until we've got a more complete attendance, as we before. I think what I will now do is begin some of the questions that .1 have. We may get interrupted here quite soon for this second vote and we'll go from there. asked the staff to give you in the interim if you didn't have it, the diary pages from Mr. Steiner. Had you bad a chance to see those beforehand? Mr. ALTMAN. These were shown to me, Mr. Chairman in connec- ti6h with my deposition, which was the first time I'd seen them. 416 The CHAIRMAN. But the point is you have them. I'm not going to into them no; I just want to make sure you have them there now: for a reference when I do go into them. Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In listening to your statement and the time we spent with Ms. Hanson yesterday, there's obviously a direct contradiction with respect to these meetings that took place in 1993 at the White House. When she went over there, she says at your instruction, to brief Mr. Nussbaum about this pending criminal referral issue--she was very explicit yesterday. I don't know if you happened to see her testimony but we cross-examined her at some length on that-she was very Arm in her recollection that you specifically had given her that instruction. Now, I want to bear your side. Mr. ALTMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I answer, may I just make one point in response to the one you made just before the break. I'm advised that Mr. Fiske commenced his investigation on account of the February 2 meeting other which I disclosed here on February 24, not as a result of any other aspects of my testimony. That's just how I'm advised. Be that as it may, I have no recollection of asking Ms. Hanson to go to the White House
Football: Cleveland Browns vs. Collegiate All-Stars
Cleveland Browns 24, College All Stars 16. The NFL champion Cleveland Browns fought off the second half drive by the College All Stars to win the annual game 24 to 16. Rookie pro quarterback John Huarte led a second half counter attack by the All Stars that thrilled fans but failed to top the Browns. Panning high angle LS punt, Cleveland Brown Walter Roberts taking return, running for 20 yard gain before being tackled out of bounds. Panning h/a LS Cleveland Browns running back Jim Brown (no. 32) rushing for short yard touchdown. TLS scoreboard showing 7-0 Browns. Panning h/a LS - Browns QB Frank Ryan scrambling, rushing, being tackled; passing to tight end Gary Collins for touchdown. Panning h/a LS - quarterback John Huarte passing for touchdown, handing off to Ken Willard for another TD. Sideline with officials in the rain.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:20:18) And let me buttress this point in this way. Ms. Hanson helped prepare the questions and answers for my testimony about White House contacts. Ms. Hanson sat directly behind me during my testimony. Just after my response to Senator Bond, if you watch the videotape I turn to her and she confirmed my answer, Then she and I had lunch together again afterwards. A week passed before Mr. Podesta's call, which alerted me to the fall meetings. Ms. Hanson, Mr. Chairman, then precleared my letter to Senator Riegle which stated that I had no prior knowledge of these meetings. She signed off on it. At none of those times did she suggest not one of those times did she suggest that my recollection was faulty. 412 We also know that Ms. Hanson earlier prepared Q's and A's indicating that I had not asked her to brief the White House last fall. And the Office of Government Ethics Report, released Sunday, indicated that she also answered "no" to a similar question which OGE or its representatives asked. I believe, Mr. Chairman, and I want to especially address myself to Senator Bond, that these facts confirm my testimony on February 24 that I had no knowledge of those meetings at the time of my testimony. The Office of Government Ethics Report concluded that no nonpublic information on the case was provided to the White House at the February 2 meeting. No nonpublic information was provided. Its investigation included testimony, taken under oath from all participants in that meeting. Mr. Cutler's report, based on a separate set of interviews with the same individuals, reached the same conclusion. In addition, had sensitive information on any aspect of the case been conveyed, perhaps Mr. Fiske would have reached a different conclusion than the one he did. Last Friday, Senator D'Amato charged that we had somehow advised the White House that the RTC would be unable to complete its investigation of Madison by the February 28 statute of limitations deadline. And that this somehow signaled the President that he need not enter into a tolling agreement because the deadline otherwise would lapse. That charge, Senator D'Amato, is categorically false. Senator DAMATO. That's not what Mr. Ickes says. Mr. ALTMAN, Senator D'Amato is wrong on this point. Senator DAMATO. Well, Mr. Ickes may be wrong, sir. If he says I'm wrong, I'm going to respond. Mr. ALTMAN My testimony on this point was wholly accurate and I want to emphasize that to you, Mr. Chairman. My testimony on this point was wholly accurate and the record makes that clear. Let me review the record. What I told the White House about RTC procedures is documented in my talking points for that meeting which, I know that you have. Those talking points say: It is not certain when the analysis will be completed, but it will be completed before February 28. And the OGE report, as I said, which is the most recent report, testimony taken under oath, found no nonpublic information was disclosed on February 2. Mr- Cutler's report and the chronology state that no such information was given on February 2. Ellen Kulka, the RTC General Counsel, made perfectly clear that no matter what, she and the RTC would be ready to make a decision by February 28. 1 believe, and you can ask Mr. Ickes yourself when he appears before you, that he did not intend to say I had told the White House the investigation could not be concluded by February 28. Now, much has been made of my supplements to the record after the February 24 hearing. I do not entirely understand this. The Chairman said at the conclusion of the hearing that the record was open for additional information. It has always been my impression that supplementing the record was a constructive act, not a bad act. 413 I want to stress to this Committee that there was not a pattern of withholding or concealing information. It's really the opposite. As soon as I learned or received information, as in the case of the two fall meetings, I immediately provided it to the Committee. It could not all have been provided in the first letter, because I didn't have it all then. Only through a comprehensive review of files and logs was more information uncovered. And ultimately an exhaustive review by Counsel turned up the final information. I believe that providing such information to this Committee, as soon as it was available, was the right step to take. It was not a case of dribbling out information which I had all along. Let me be specific.
Peru / people, train
Peru / from e.b.
Peru - Burros carrying water
Peru Indians
Peru
Peru (Indians & village)
Paradox of Peru
Peru (S. America)
Misc. S. America (burros)
Lima, Peru
Out of focus view of downtown Lima adjacent to San Martin Square. Adult Peruvian males and female pedestrians walking along city streets; passenger buses and cars turning in front of the "Banco de Credito del Peru" building. Automobile traffic driving down street, adult Peruvian men and women waiting to cross street.
Jungle
Peru