July 29, 1994 - Part 1
July 29, 1994 - Part 1
(10:08:29) Now, it's our duty as Members of this Committee to be faithful to the Committee's and the Senate's instruction to us. As Chairman, it is my responsibility, together with my Ranking Member, Senator D'Amato, to be certain that each of us adheres to the scope of the inquiry by Senate Resolution 229 so we don't jeopardize Mr. Fiske's investigation and I ask for the cooperation of every Member in that regard. As Chairman of the Committee for the past 6 years, I have sought the greatest possible degree of bipartisan cooperation, During this current inquiry, Senator D'Amato and I have worked cooperatively in every step to resolve various differences as they have arisen. Should additional disputes arise, the Committee will act, of course, to resolve them. I will protect the right of each Senator, just as I must, and will protect the integrity of our Committee's work effort. I ask that each Member understand my commitment to see that the time is accorded fairly to both sides and that the individual time allotments are respected and adhered to, it will be my responsibility to see that an or our questions fit within our scope requirements and not move across into the restricted area of Mr. Fiske's ongoing investigation, and I ask each Member to exercise great care in this regard. In my view, the primary function of these public hearings is to get the facts out to the American people so that they may evaluate this matter for themselves. That cannot be accomplished in one day or by an individual witness or by some seeming revelation. We need to weigh all the facts and hear the testimony from all the witnesses. So I would encourage my colleagues and the public to withhold final judgment until all the information has been presented and the bearing record is complete. This will take several days, and will require sorting out and evaluating contradictory accounts by various witnesses. After we have beard and evaluated the evidence, Senate Resolution 229 requires that we consider and determine whether there was improper conduct with respect to contacts between the White House and officials at Treasury and RTC. Now, Mr. Fiske for his part-and this is important-has concentrated on whether there was any criminal conduct. His investigation, and I quote from the statement Mr. Fiske made directly: Focused on whether in the course of any of these contacts any individual ob. structed justice, attempted to obstruct justice, or conspired with others to obstruct justice. Quoting further from Mr. Fiske's report, and this is his conclusion: After review of all the evidence, we have concluded that the evidence is insufficient to establish that anyone within the White House or the Department of Treasury acted with the intent to corruptly influence an RTC investigation. Therefor This is all his quotation and his summary: Therefore the evidence of the events surrounding the contacts between the White House and the Treasury Department does not justify the prosecution of anyone for a violation of 1505, which is the criminal law obstruction of justice provision. We have also concluded that the evidence does not justify a criminal prosecution or violation of any other Federal statute. One more quotation from his summary. Mr. Fiske said: In reaching this conclusion, this office is not determining anything other than that the evidence does not justify a criminal prosecution. We express no opinion on the propriety of these meetings or whether anything that occurred at these meetings constitutes a breach of ethical rules or standards. As Mr. Fiske then restricted his review to only possible violations of criminal law statutes, this Committee has been instructed by the Senate to apply a different standard and to determine whether there was "improper conduct" with respect to any of these contacts which could include such things as the inappropriate sharing of confidential information, preferential treatment, and the appearance of impropriety.