August 1, 1994 - Part 5
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(16:55:14) Third, no discussion took place regarding the substance of any civil claims. I was not in a position to have such a discussion. Fourth, and most importantly, Mr. Altman viewed the issue of recusal as one of process, and not substance, because, as he repeatedly said to me, to Ellen Kulka, and to others, Mr. Altman intended to follow whatever recommendation be might receive from Ms. Kulka. I believed him then, and I believe him now. In recounting the events of February 1 and 2, 1994, 1 am aware that others' recollections differ from my own. I do not question the good faith of anyone who has a differing recollection. Most importantly, I think these differences in recollection are irrelevant. What matters is that each of these events in which I participated pursued legitimate objectives and were appropriate. Despite differ 101 ences in recollections, no one, to my knowledge, intended to do, or did, anything wrong or unethical. On February 24, 1994, this Committee held RTC oversight hearings. It was the first time, in about a year, that those hearings had been held, and the scope of the topics to be covered was enormous. For over a week, often working around the clock, a team of RTC, oversight board, and Treasury officials prepared testimony, questions and answers, and otherwise researched issues that were thought likely to arise at the hearings. Ultimately, a substantial briefing book was put together for Secretary Bentsen and Mr. Altman. When the day of the hearings came, Secretary Bentsen and Mr. Altman testified on a panel of witnesses, and I was seated in the row behind them, along with other Treasury and RTC officials. The hearings went on for 41/2 hours, without a break. During the hearings, I was aware of a number of responses that Mr. Altman gave that I believed would require further elaboration. I expected and understood that, in the ordinary course, the record would be supplemented and, if necessary, corrected, and that we would have the opportunity to do so in a careful, professional, and thoughtful way, following a review of the transcript. But the events of the next week overtook us. A March 3, 1994, Washington Post article discussed the September and October White House meetings that I described to you this afternoon. Rather than awaiting a complete review of the transcript, piecemeal corrective efforts began. The next day, March 4, 1994, Grand Jury subpoenas were issued by Independent Counsel Fiske. This effectively ended the normal processes that would have occurred to review and supplement the testimony. ~ Two questions that Mr. Altman was asked during his testimony have been the focus of some attention. I have been asked why I did not speak up at the hearings or have Mr. Altman supplement his testimony. I want to address those issues directly. At page 69 of the printed record of the Committee's hearings, the following question was asked and answered: Senator BOND: How was the White House notified of the referral? Mr. ALTmAN: They were not notified by the RTC, to the beat of my knowledge. When this question was posed, I realized that there bad been no consideration of this question in preparing Mr. Altman's briefing materials, and that I had not thought about the fall events relating to the criminal referrals for many months. Although I remembered that I had spoken with Mr, Nussbaum about the referrals, I did not have a clear recollection of the meeting or of the events surround-ing it. Listening to the question in the context of the questions that I came before and after, it appeared that it related to RTC contacts with the White House about the criminal referrals. Moreover, Mr. Altman was asked, and answered, about the extent of his own knowledge. I did not know, sitting there, what he knew or recalled knowing. Without having the ability and opportunity to discuss this matter with Mr. Altman and others at Treasury, I did not be-lieve that I could suggest to Mr. Altman, there, on the spot, that he change his response.