August 1, 1994 - Part 3
August 1, 1994 - Part 3
(14:40:22) Ms. KULKA. No. Senator FAIRCLOTH. No records or notes of the meetings? Ms. KULKA. I combed through h my records, sir, and I don't have any notes. I have calendar indications of meetings, but they could have been on a wide variety of subjects. There's nothing to tell me when I may have discussed this subject with Mr. Altman. Senator FAIRCLOTH. It would appear, then, if you were having a meeting with your boss, Mr. Altman, on something of this important of an issue, that. you would have kept some note or record or made notes of what you were doing and when you did it. Ms. KuLKA, Yes, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH, Did you discuss any of the other pending RTC investigations into savings and loan's with Mr. Altman or only Madison? Ms, KULKA. Only Madison, sir. Ms. KuLKA. I had sorry, sir, but I did not. Senator FAIRCLOTH. All right. The RTC was investigating to find out who was responsible for $50 million in losses at Madison Guaranty, losses that the Federal taxpayers had to make good. Based on its investigation, the RTC could bring civil suits against persons who were responsible for questionable financial dealings or who had benefited from them, civil suits to get some of that money back 73 to the taxpayers. Unless Congress acted, the statute of limitation was going to expire on February 28, 1994. Persons who might be responsible for some of the $50 million that the taxpayers lost in eluded President and Ms. Clinton, their political and business associates . Was Mr. Altman aware that the statute of limitations was set expire on February 28, 1994? Ms. KULKA. Yes, sir. Senator FAiRcLoTH. Did you discuss what the option might be if the RTC did not meet the deadlines? Ms. KuLKA. Yes, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. What else did you discuss with Mr. Altman, Ms. KULKA. I discussed the reasons why private persons might be willing to execute tolling agreements and why they might not be willing to execute tolling agreements. Senator FAIRCLOTH. All this you, did without notes as to when you did it, and what you talked on. You just simply went in bad a little circular verbiage, came back out, and forgot it. You didn't know when, what, or why. Is that right? Ms. KULKA. I didn't forget my conversation, sir. I recollect the main points of it, and I don t invariably, , speak from notes. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Did you ever talk to Robert Fiske? Ms. KULKA. Yes. Senator FAIRCLOTH. What did you talk to him about? Ms. KuLKA. I talked to him on a couple of occasions about coordinating our investigations and dealing with information in similar matters. Senator FAIRCLOTH. That's all ' Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRmAN. Senator Sasser. Senator SASSER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really just have one question, which I want to direct to Ms. Kulka. Ms. Kulka, as I beard it, you testified earlier today that you told Mr. Robert Altman that you would indeed file a civil case against Madison before the statute of limitations expired, if it were warranted. Ms. KuLKA. Yes, that's to Roger Altman, sir. Senator SASSER. I said Robert, didn't I? Ms. KuLKA. Yes. Senator SASSER. You're a good listener. I guess what I'm trying to resolve in my own mind is, if an attorney for a matter, who was about to be sued, somehow got wind of the information that you gave Mr. Altman, that you were going to go ahead and bring suit before the statute of limitations expired, if it were warranted, what value is that information to anybody? Ms. KuLKA. I don't care to speculate, sir. Senator SASSER. Let me just say, I think, as one who used to be a practicing lawyer for 15 years, it's of absolutely no value. In other words, what you're saying is yes, the RTC is going to bring suit in a civil case against Madison before the statute of limitations expires, if it is warranted, and if it is not warranted, if the facts don't justify, then you will not bring a suit. But you're going to make that decision, and if it's justified, move forward before the statute of limitations expires and bars the suit, If that's the information Mr. Altman got, and if he were to pass that on to anyone, particu- 74 larly the attorney representing Madison, it would not be of any particular value whatsoever. It would just simply say that you better-that you're going to bring the suit before the statute of limitations bars it, if there is-if you perceive there's merit to the suit That's it. That's no big deal, at least as I read it. I guess that's my only question, Mr. Chairman. The CHAiRmAN. Thank you, Senator Sasser. Senator Bennett