[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 16, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        A FALSE WHITEWATER CLAIM

                                 ______


                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 16, 1994

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the willingness of both 
press and politicians to speak ill of others unfortunately far exceeds 
not only their willingness to defend those who are entitled to defense, 
but often their respect for basic accuracy. Too many people in both 
lines of work are unwilling to let the facts stand in the way of a good 
juicy accusation. One very conspicuous exception to this unfortunate 
tendency is Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe. In the Sunday, March 
13 edition of the Boston Globe, he examines--and effectively refutes--
the accusation that Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman has been 
guilty of some grave misdeed. Mr. Altman is an able, dedicated, and 
honest person, whose work at the Treasury has been first rate, and he 
has functioned very effectively as a Deputy to Treasury Secretary 
Bentsen. Faced with a very difficult and unprecedented situation, he 
made a slight mistake a month ago by providing entirely innocuous 
information about RTC procedures to people in the White House. It was a 
mistake because he should have been able to anticipate how it would 
have been perceived, but it betrayed no trust, interfered with no 
investigation, and did no actual damage whatsoever.
  Thomas Oliphant's column does a very good job of explaining exactly 
what Mr. Altman did and why there is no basis whatsoever for the 
hysterical attacks on him that are motivated by partisanship and/or a 
general journalistic blood lust. I ask that Mr. Oliphant's column be 
printed here, noting that I have had to make some deletions in that 
column because of the House rule which says that debates and records in 
the House may be intensely critical of any institution or people 
anywhere in the world with the exception of the United States Senate 
and its Members.

                 [From the Boston Globe, Mar. 13, 1994]

                        A False Whitewater Claim

                          (By Thomas Oliphant)

       The case on behalf of congressional Whitewater rafting 
     rests on the claim that it was at a hearing on Feb. 24 that 
     new, shocking, shattering information was revealed through 
     the questions of senators who can be expected to do much more 
     of the same if full-scale hearings were held.
       The claim is as bogus as bogus gets.
       The claim rests in large part on the attempted defamation 
     of an honorable, honest man--Roger Altman, the deputy 
     treasury secretary. It also rests on a deliberate distortion 
     as well as lazy misreporting of his testimony that day. These 
     are weak reeds for the scandal-mongers and frenzied feeders, 
     as we shall shortly see.
       The truth is that the Feb. 24 hearing of the Senate Banking 
     Committee puts on display precisely what stinks about this 
     mess. To wit:
       Congressional manipulation of Whitewater for partisan 
     purposes.
       A chronic inability of the scandal-crazed press to handle 
     and pursue information in a mature, thorough manner.
       A set of facts that show precisely the opposite of what 
     they have been purported to show.
       The irony is that the truth about Feb. 24 and what it 
     really means demonstrates not just why the professional 
     probity of Robert Fiske's inquiry is where the public should 
     look for both information and a just result; it also 
     demonstrates the golden opportunity that wretched excess has 
     presented the regrouping, full-disclosing Clinton White 
     House.
       The double irony is that just as issue-desperate Republican 
     partisans are whining because they got what they wanted in 
     the first place (an independent counsel), they are now in an 
     exposed position to get what they say they want next (media 
     questioning of the president, and especially Hillary Rodham 
     Clinton, plus a hearing on the subject raised on Feb. 24). 
     Somewhere, I suspect, someone in the White House is uttering 
     a famous Clint Eastwood entreaty.
       The standard, boilerplate and false media and Republican 
     summary of Altman's testimony is that he revealed ``secret 
     contact'' between senior White House officials and himself in 
     his capacity as acting ahead of the S&L-cleansing Resolution 
     Trust Corp. relating to the famous, failed Madison Guaranty 
     S&L of Arkansas.
       In fact and in ominous implication, this summary is false.
       What happened is that in January Altman got pressure from 
     Republicans to make sure that the statute of limitations on 
     possible RTC civil claims arising from Madison's collapse was 
     extended. At D'Amato's request, Altman explained to his staff 
     how the RTC's procedures work for filing claims, not doing 
     so, or extending the period for consideration of the issue. 
     He was careful not to get into a specific discussion of 
     Madison case information with the Republicans; in any event, 
     he had none, and in fact never has.
       Having given this procedural information to Republicans--
     for the cost of a phone call, reporters could also get it--
     Altman decided to make sure White House officials understood 
     it also.
       The result was the meeting on Feb. 2. Before attending it, 
     Altman checked with the Treasury's ethics officer--a Bush 
     administration appointee. The reason no red flag was dropped 
     was the sensible one that since procedural, general 
     information--as opposed to inside, specific information--was 
     the subject, there was nothing even questionable, and much 
     that was laudable, about Altman's intentions. Following the 
     session, there were a couple of incidental contacts dealing 
     with the same, generic, procedural facts.
       That's it. From both Altman's testimony and a follow-up 
     submission to the Banking Committee, as well as old-fashioned 
     reporting, there are no other facts indicating anything else.
       Perhaps one should expect partisans to try making hay out 
     of sawdust. What is sad is to see the press so blatantly 
     mischaracterize facts knowable since Feb. 24 under the 
     competitive pressures of a feeding frenzy.
       Fortunately, Fiske and the grand jury are collecting facts 
     under oath. In a few weeks, those in politics and journalism 
     who have defamed this guy will have some explaining to do.
  

                          ____________________