August 1, 1994 - Part 5
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(17:00:20) At page 55 of the printed record of the Committee's hearings, the following question was asked by Senator Gramm: 102 Have you, or any member of your staff, had any communication with the Presi- dent, the First Lady, or any of their or any member of their White House Savings & Loan? representatives, including their legal counsel staff, concerning Whitewater or the Madison Although Mr. Altman responded affirmatively to this question and described his discussion at the February 2, 1994, White House meeting about the statute of limitations, his answer did not include a description of the recusal discussion. I believed it was appropriate to wait until we could discuss his answer and the reasons that he had not mentioned the subject of recusal, to decide how best to supplement the record. As I have indicated, that opportunity never arrived. As I left the hearing on February 24, 1994, 1 spoke with Steven Harris, the Committee Staff Director and Chief Counsel Mr. Harris told me that there were going to be follow-up questions for Mr Altman from the Committee. The next day, Mr. Harris emphasized that we should expect many follow-up questions. On the following Tuesday, I was given a copy of a Reuter's transcript of a colloquy between Senators Riegle and DAmato in which Senator DAmato set forth over a dozen questions that he wanted answered about the White House meetings described in Mr. Altman' s testimony. Senator Riegle responded to Senator DAmato that, ' "The Committee record is still open," and that Senator D'Amato's questions should be submitted to Mr. Altman so that they could be answered and included in the record. Based on this and on what Mr. Harris had told me the previous week, I fully expected that we would receive written follow questions which would be answered in conjunction with a thorough review of the transcript of the testimony. There was no doubt in my mind that all of these conversations and meetings would be disclosed and described fully to the Committee, and that every question would be answered. However, as I stated, with the service of the Grand Jury subpoenas by the Independent Counsel the normal process of reviewing and, if necessary, correcting the record was overtaken by the many investigations that followed. As my description of the events of last fall and this past winter makes clear each of the conversations between White House and Treasury officials at which I was present served a legitimate governmental purpose, and was not intended to, and, in fact, did not, further any private interests or bestow benefits on any individual. The same cannot be said, however, for the RTC employee, or employees, who leaked information about the criminal referrals to news reporters, breaching the Office of Government Ethic's ethical standards and RTC regulations. No action was ever taken against them. I think it is important for all of us to maintain our focus. Much has been made in the press about purported inconsistencies between some of my recollections and those of Secretary Bentsen and Deputy Secretary Altman. I have the highest respect for both Sectary Bentsen and Deputy Secretary Altman. It is my honor and privilege to serve with them and report to them. The fact that we have differences in recollections should come as no surprise. Wit- nesses to events often have differing recollections and, frankly, the differences here are not important. They are not important because no one, not me, not anyone at Treasury,and no one at the White 103 House, attempted to interfere in the substance or processes of any criminal referrals, or the substance or processes of any potential civil claims, involving Madison. The criminal referrals were made, the civil claims continue to be explored, and Mr. Altman recused himself from any involvement in the Madison matter almost half a ear ago, never having made, or having been asked to make, a substantive decision.