August 2, 1994 - Part 5
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:15:34) Moreover, it isn't clear whether recusing oneself in the absence of such re- quirements is entirely appropriate either, and the Office of Govern- ment Ethics Report questions whether I ultimately made the right decision to recuse or instead had a duty to serve. I don't think that taking 3 weeks to make such a complex decision is all that surprising. But again, the important point is that I recused myself without ever having participated in any decisions on Madison. Not one decision. Let me address now the issues which have been raised about my February 24 testimony before this Committee. I have a deep respect for our system of Government, the role of the Congress, and the importance of testimony by the Executive Branch. Our system cannot function properly without honest communication among the three branches. It is the equivalent of a sacred trust. Now, I testified many times during my 4 years in the Carter ministration, and during my service in this Administration. And have always tried my best to testify in the most forthright way. realize that, in retrospect, my testimony of February 24 may appear too narrow or perhaps incomplete. I regret that that perception 411 and I apologize for it. But I want to emphasize that there was never any intent to--never any intent, Mr. Chairman-to mislead this Committee. I prepared for that testimony with 10 or 15 members of RTC and Treasury staff, and my answers were in line with the responses developed by that group. The relevant exchanges on Madison Guaranty that day consumed less than 10 minutes. I thought that my answers were responsive to the questions I was asked. Given an opportunity to do it all over again, I would have added more information, but my intention was to testify forthrightly, as I have always tried to do. And I hope I can reassure you of that today. Let me be quite specific about my testimony on February 24. Senator Gramm asked me if I, or any member of my staff, had any communication with the White House regarding Whitewater or Madison Guaranty. I answered that I bad one substantive contact. Senator Gramm asked me to describe the substance of that one contact. I described the February 2 meeting at the White House and the discussion about the generic procedures that the RTC would follow when a statute of limitations was about to expire, I did not mention the meetings between Ms. Hanson and others at the White House on September 24 and October 14 because I was not aware of them at the time of my testimony on February 24. On March 2, 1 week later, I received a call from Mr. Podesta of the White House. He asked me, in effect, about "the other two meetings." I had never beard of them and told him so and Mr. Cutler's chronology is clear on that point. I promptly called Ms. Hanson and Mr. Steiner who confirmed the existence of those two fall meetings, Neither challenged my statement to them that I'd not heard of them previously. I then prepared and sent a letter to the Chairman of this Committee indicating that I had just learned of two meetings in the fall, my impression that they related to press inquiries, and I wanted to expand the record accordingly. I believe that I also spoke by telephone to Senator Riegle before sending that letter. I wanted this Committee to have the new information immediately. I telephoned Senator Bond, who bad asked the original question. I also wanted to advise him immediately. We had a cordial conversation, and he thanked me for alerting him. Ms. Hanson testified yesterday that her discussion in September 1993 1 was at my request. I do not believe that to be the case. Recollections can differ, of course, especially on events that occurred 5 months earlier. There is nothing unusual in that. I just disagree with her recollection.