August 4, 1994 - Part 5
August 4, 1994 - Part 5
(13:55:30) What I can say is there is no evidence to suggest that anyone in the White House has done anything to influence the RTC's decision process and I think career RTC people have said the same thing under testimony-under oath. The CHAIRMAN, Thank you. Senator Dodd. Senator DODD . Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This will be very, very brief. I know we need to move on. Just a couple of observations. One, our colleague from Delaware, Senator Roth, in talking about "de facto recusal" and de jure, I guess, recusal I think tried to use your recusal, Mr. McLarty, as an example where your former employment with ARCO and your status there and then the company's involvement with some issues to be forwarded compared that to Mr. Altman's decision to recuse as if somehow they were on some sort of equal footing. I think the record needs to reflect that Mr. Altman, whatever other complaints people may have, had no financial interest in Madison Guaranty or any of the interests that were going to come before the RTC. His decision to recuse, ultimately I guess, was based more on what he felt may have been a personal relationship with the President and Mrs. Clinton than anything else. I just didn't want those two examples to be left out there as comparables. That's more of a statement than a question. But, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a couple of observations, if I could, because I think the record ought to reflect this. We've seen a strong indication of this Administration's willingness to be coop- erative. I know of no other example on inquiries by the U.S. Senate where the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States and the Chief of Staff of the First Lady have come before a Senate Committee-now there are historians around here who may correct me but as far as I know that is unprecedented-voluntarily to come forward and to talk about these matters. The normal course is to fight that every step of the way. We've seen that experience in the past and for many people who may be watching these procedures or listening to them who may not be familiar of the historical context, the fact that Mr, McLarty and MS. Williams are here today voluntarily to answer questions, and I think very directly and very candidly of this Committee, is some- thing I hope the Committee will take note of as an unprecedented step. And secondly The CHAIRMAN. Well, Senator Dodd, shouldn't it be noted, too, they're here because the President told them to come up here and, respond to these questions? Senator DODD. Which as well the President deserves credit for He asked them to come here rather than fighting it all the way and hiring six law firms to try to come up with Constitutional arguments why you don't have to appear here. We've seen that in past. 349 Secondly, Mr. McLarty, I want to pay a particular compliment to you as a former Chief of Staff. This group of people we had before us yesterday was about as fine a group and I'd say the same for Ms. Williams as well, but and I think you heard that from almost every Member here. They answered directly, and honestly took steps of their own volition in a number of instances in which others, I think, would be the first to tell you today they wish they had in a couple of other instances. I think that's a compliment to you in putting together a first- class team of people. These are people's faces the American public never get to see. They probably don't remember their names today, who they were, but they're down there every day working very hard. I think they reflected well on the President and on the people around him who put that staff together and I want the record to reflect that as well. Last, and it's a question for you. In his testimony before the House of Representatives, Lloyd Cutler noted that while various Treasury-White House contacts violated no ethical standards in his judgment, it would have been better if some of the contacts had never occurred. He noted- and in fact-I didn't know he used these words and I used them because my colleague from Utah has repeated them but-when I consider I used the word "sloppy"--there were too many meetings, too many people milling around, that created some of these difficulties. So instead of going back over that, I wonder if you might share with this Committee what steps have been taken at the White House within this Administration as a result of what's happened here, to minimize this from happening again? Just from an administrative standpoint, that would avoid the kind of proliferation of meetings and people being involved in something beyond their scope of responsibility, if you will.