August 1, 1994 - Part 4
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?