August 1, 1994 - Part 4
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:30:40) Mr. ROELLE. Yes, sir. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Katsanos? Mr. KATSANOS. Yes, sir. Senator D'AMATO. If someone called you and said, "John Jones, we understand, is a witness or to be named as a target or a possible defendant," what do you say? Mr. KATsANOS. I would say I wouldn't confirm nor deny it. Senator D'AMATO. That's right, and that's the standard that should have been employed. I thank the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. I want to just inquire of Members on both sides," because I want to be able to give adequate notice to Ms. Hanson, who's due up here next, and to allow at least a brief period for peo. ple to have a late lunch who haven't yet had one, so let me go right around the table- how many people seek an opportunity Senator MosELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one question. 89 The CHAIRMAN. I'll come to you next, then, if I may do that. Let me inquire Anybody so I can see how many people still wish to be recognized. Anybody else on this side? I don't see any indication. Do you want to be recognized? Senator BOXER. I reserve my right to ask a question. I don't have an at this moment. Senator KERRY. No. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry does. Senator Shelby does. Senator Moseley-Braun, you're next. Senator MosELEY-BRAuN. Again, I've refrained from asking questions of this panel in the interest of moving along with this hearing. I have a point of clarification with Ms. Kulka. I think it's important for the record to be clarified. In your conversation with Senator Shelby about the impact of Rule 11 on your decisionmaking, it was my understanding that as of the February 1, 1994, meeting, no decision had yet been made on whether there was even a case to be made or whether to sue Madison. Is that correct? Ms. KULKA. That's correct. Senator MosELEY-BRAuN. The impression was not just a matter of whether the case should be filed or was in shape for filing or comported with the technical requirements of the rule, you hadn't even reached the question of if there was a case to be made. Ms. KULKA. That's correct. Senator MosELEY-BRAuN. I think it's important that, for the record, that clarification be made. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Thank you, The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Senator Kerry, you're the only other Member that I know of that seeks recognition now. Senator Boxer is reserving her right. Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will try not to try my colleague's patience or go too long. This panel, particularly, is important for a number of reasons to this committee, generically, and I want to cover a couple of bases if we can. I would like to just explain to the Senator from New York and others precisely why I think it's so important. I am not diminishing one iota what I think the Senator from New York has accurately raised as aver significant issue here. very I do not accept the notion that because there is perhaps a foul, there is automatically no harm. I don't accept that, and I think the Committee as I've said previously, is going to have to come to grips with the judgment and actions that ensued with respect to communications between Treasury and White House, and the terrible problem of the double hat that Roger Altman wore, one that I think many of us felt all along was great trouble for the RTC as well as, otentially, for Treasury. The reason I raised these other issues is because I don't think you can understand Whitewater and put this entire thing in its proper perspective, if we don't ask questions about the early part and understand how we got here. I'm simply raising these questions for my colleagues to be sure that we in the second round, as we go further, are sure to cover those bases. What I'm anxious to get from colleagues is a consensus on the Committee that we ought to ask questions about this early part in order to properly tell the story to the American people. It troubles 90 me that a Democratic U.S. Attorney behaves one way. It trouble me that a Republican might behave one way. I'm sure my co leagues agree with me. When I read that during the middle of an election, at the same time you had the passportgate issue that gr eatly embarrassed the Administration because of the leaks about the investigation that was constructed, you simultaneously pressure on U.S. Attorneys with respect to the criminal re that came out of a New York Times article, that came out of then had smell test begins to react and say something is here. That is all I'm suggesting, and I it say very respectfully to col-leagues we should understand that.