July 29, 1994 - Part 1
July 29, 1994 - Part 1
(11:06:32) OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONNIE MACK Senator MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe we're here today to protect the rights of the American people. They have a right to know the truth and no individual, no matter what his or her position, is entitled to infringe upon that right: The public expects Government officials to conduct themselves with honesty and integrity. Government officials strike a bargain with the American people. The people confer power and authority upon them and in return, they are supposed to exercise that power within clearly defined limits. Unfortunately we have seen that this Administration has appointees that have not upheld their end of that bargain. When this happens, Congress can and must look into the matter. For some, I realize that muddying the waters, confusing the facts, and generally putting a lid on things is the goal. Some say that engaging in this kind of inquiry may prove harmful to the Presidency and will do damage to the public's perception of the Executive Branch. In the name of protecting against such harm, we have witnessed extraordinary efforts to limit this investigation and withhold the facts. I find these efforts deeply disturbing. While others may be willing to overlook the enormous number of inconsistencies and serious questions of impropriety in this matter, I am not. No matter bow disturbing this may turn out to be, I want to know all the facts. I simply do not accept that we shouldn't be doing this because it may damage the Executive Branch. Any damage that is done is 19 a result of the actions during the past year and a half by the people we will bringing before us. Our proper role as Members of this Committee is not to act as advocates for one side or the other, but rather to seek the truth. I view these hearings as a painful but necessary responsibility of our system of Government. To dismiss them as mere partisan exercise is both short- sighted and irresponsible. The documents and depositions before us prove that this, indeed, may be a difficult experience. We know that Mr. Altman's accounts of events during the spring and fall of 1993 differ sharply from that of a number of other witnesses. Notwithstanding his insistence to this Committee that be did not want to get "within 100,000 miles of the Madison case," he has become the eye of the storm. A storm so furious it stripped away the independence of the RTC when it came to a case involving the President of the United States. Contrary to his public statements, we can prove that Mr. Altman was briefed about the first criminal referral on Madison within days of his arrival at the Treasury Department, We know that he was briefed a second time in detail in the fall of 1993 regarding nine new criminal referrals involving Madison. We know that Mr. Altman directed an RTC official to brief Jean Hanson, the General Counsel to the Treasury, regarding the specifics of these referrals. We also know that Mr. Altman directed Ms. Hanson to speak to the White House about these referrals and she did what she was told. At a September 29, 1993 meeting, and again the following day, she gave confidential information about the referrals to Bernie Nussbaum and Cliff Sloan of the White House Counsel's Office. What that means is the Clintons had information at their disposal telling them in advance that they were going to have to testify under oath about their dealings with Madison. White House aides knew about what kinds of crimes were alleged in the referrals and who was alleged to have committed them. What alarms me most, about this fact, is that the Clintons bad all this information before the Justice Department ever received the referrals. This is just dead wrong. The White House's justification for these contacts is that they needed the information in order to respond to potential press inquiries about the criminal referrals. In *my mind, this raises a very significant question. Since when do we toss aside our standards regarding confidentiality and conflicts of interest just because the press might later have a question? The White House has said the Washington Post was inquiring at that time about the referrals. Well, according to yesterday's paper, The Post had no specific knowledge of what was contained in the referrals, and, in fact, printed no significant story on the matter until October 31, 1993. We want a credible explanation of these events. Finally, and more generally, I also want to know why Government employees were tasked with responding to questions concerning a purely personal matter to the First Couple. This blurring of personal matters and public duties recurs all through this controversy and to me, it is -simply improper, 20 We have White House lawyers doing the President's private business. We have White House interference with the investigation of the very private matter of Vince Foster's death. We have White House interference with the confidential RTC investigation of a small savings and loan in Arkansas with which the First Couple was formerly associated. All of these improper interferences raise very serious questions for me. The questions are very real and they must be answered. The American people deserve no less The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shelby.