Advanced Search
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(19:31:10)(Tape #10062 begins) when I viewed a portion of the tape, was because when Mr. Podesta called Mr. Altman and told him about his responses to Senator Bond's questions, Mr. Altman asked me about it, and I had-we had to find a cassette player, a tape player, and find Senator Bond's questions because we didn't have a transcript. Now, why the White House had a transcript on Monday, or a draft on Monday and a transcript on Tuesday, and I didn't nave a copy, to my recollection, I haven't any idea, but that is where I was. In addition, I didn't have a transcript when the letter was written and the letter, as I said before, was intended to deal with one specific issue, that is, the fall meetings. I don't recall having a discussion with Mr. Altman about the recusal issue as it having to that letter, or hearing, that Mr. Podesta bad raised as an issue with Mr. Altman in his conversation. Senator GRAmm. Ms. Hanson, did you ever have any doubt about the fact that there had been a recusal discussion on February 2, 1994? HANSON. No, sir. GRAMM. And yet you beard Mr. Altman say, point-blank, three times. that no discussion had occurred of any subject except 138 the deadline, the February 28, 1994, deadline. I just continue to be puzzled. It's not as if the March 2, 1994, letter ended all this. He wrote another letter on March 3, 1994. He wrote another letter on March, 11, 1994. Not until March 21, 1994, does he mention this issue as part of the February 2, 1994, meeting, Why? Ms. HANSON. Sir, I don't know. As I stated, on March 4, 1994; Grand Jury subpoenas were served. Under instruction from my counsel, I no longer talked with anybody about the Madison matter or worked on the Madison matter. At that point, I still hadn't had an opportunity to read the transcript. I didn't have an opportunity to read the transcript until the weekend after the subpoenas were served. So the answer to your question, sir, is I don't know. Senator GRAmm. I just would like to make the point on this subject, that you're not an employee of the RTC. I guess I can understand filling in for Mr. Altman because be's busy. I understand that. (19:33:45)(End of tape #10061) I have people on my staff that do things for me, trying to fill in for me. I understand that. What I don't understand is, you are the General Counsel of the Treasury Department. These things are your job, and it seems to me that, of all the other issues, having Roger Altman tell this Committee the truth was an important part of your job. He had all these opportunities, after be's been warned by the White House, he, or someone, has watched this tape, two different transcripts are available, yet not until March 21, 1994, does he get around to telling us this. It's something that I don't understand, and it seems to me, by any reading of your job description, that this was part of your job. Ms. HANsON. I disagree, sir. Senator GRAmm. Now, let me Ms. HANsON. I don't think it was my job to physically locate a transcript. I think it was my job to ask for a transcript, which I did, repeatedly. As I stated, why I didn't have one, I don't know. Senator GRAmm. When did you see a transcript? Ms. HANSON. It was later in that week. Senator GRAmm. Why did we not get the letter about the subject matter-the second subject matter of the February 2, 1994, meeting, then, until March 21, 1994?
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(19:40:43) MS. HANSON. Sir I disagree that it dominated it for the entire day. It certainly did not. Mr, Altman--Mr. Altman's prepared ques- 140 tion and answer only related to his contacts, and that's what he re-sponded to. His prepared answer didn't relate to contacts by everyone else on the staff. He was not prepared to answer that. In fact, as I sat there and listened to your question, I realized that he was responding only with respect to his contacts, because that was what his prepared response was. I didn't realize, in prepa- ration for the oversight board hearing, that the Committee would want information -with detail on every single contact between anyone in the White House and anyone in Treasury on any-no matter bow trivial or insignificant. If that was what was-if that is what the Committee wanted, that answer was not prepared, and would have had to have been' prepared in response to reviewing the transcript and the follow--up questions. The CHAiRmAN. Senator Gramm, excuse me, just for a minute'. because we're well over and I want to give you all the time you, need, as I said I would. But, I think we do have to rotate within the general bounds Senator GRAMM. Could I make one final point? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, of course. The witness has asked if she could have a brief pause and I think she's entitled to one. Then' we'll continue. Why don't you go ahead and make your last point, then we'll recess for 5 minutes or so. Senator GRAmm. I'm not trying to badger. I'm trying to get the facts. But I don't think you can say-and I want to go back and look at this 54- page briefing paper to see what, actually, he had been prepared to answer, and we can do that while we're on our recess-but I don't think you can expect us to accept the assertions' as to why he didn't answer our questions. In light of the questions' that we asked, what he said was not true, but we cannot be expected to accept that he was answering different questions than the ones we were asking. I mean Ms. HANsON. That's not what I've testified, sir. What I've said, is Chat he responded to a part of your question. He was not prepared to respond to all of your question, because your question was much broader than his prepared response was and, frankly, based on what you're saying now, what I even would have prepared for him Senator GRAmm. But he knew about these conversations Ms. HANSON. ---or what everyone else prepared for him. Senator GRAmm. He was part of them. Why did he have to be prepared for that? The CHAIRMAN. Why don't we do this. We're going to continue a long as we need to. The witness has indicated that she would like a brief pause, and we'll take a 5-minute pause here. When we re- sume, Senator Sarbanes. will start on our side, and we'll continue., Why don't we recess for 5 minutes and then we'll resume. (19:44:02) [Recess.] (19:44:05) Commentary of hearings hosts NINA TOTENBERG and KEN BODE from tv studio
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(19:35:17) Ms. HANSON. Sir, as I stated, I don't know the answer to that. After March 4, 1994, when the Grand Jury subpoenas were served, I no longer was working on Madison-anything related to Madison. Senator GRAmm. Let me go back to February 23, 1994. This is the day before the bearing that we're all talking about. From looking at telephone logs, testimonies, and statements that have been made under oath, it must have been a frantic day at the Department of the Treasury, because on that day, we had one, two, three, four contacts. This is the day before the testimony. Everybody knows it's coming. It's obvious that there's great concern about it; There are 54 pages of questions and answers for Mr. Altman about Whitewater, So, obviously, this is a day of intense activity. We know that Mr. Altman called Harold Ickes on that (lay. Remember, this is one day before the hearing. The purpose of this discussion had to do with stepping down from the RTC, Then Harold Ickes calls Mr. Altman and is transferred to Josh Steiner and he 139 discusses recusal as well as the decision to step down. Steiner rela the information to Altman. Then at Altman's request, according to your deposition, you called Nussbaum to inform him that Altman will have no participation in decisions with regard to RTC civil matters. Then, Eggleston calls you and asks what Altman's response will be to a question at the Banking Committee hearing, and you read him the prepared question and answer. Now, it seems to me, at least trying to put all this together-and, of course, you were there. We weren't tbere--but, it seems to me, this -must have been a whole day of activities where there's communication back and forth between the Treasury Department and, therefore, the RTC, because Mr. Altman is Acting Head of the RTC, and the White House all day long. We know of at least four communications, two of which you were directly involved in. Ms. HANSON, Sir-ask your question. Senator GRAmm. Now, one day later Ms. HANSON. Oh, wait. May I respond to that? Senator GRAmm. Sure. Ms. HANSON. It was a hectic day. It was an extreme] hectic day, but not because people were calling back and forth. With respect to Mr. Altman's calls and Mr. Steiner's calls, I don't know anything about them. I was asked to call Mr. Nussbaum and tell him what Mr. Altman's response was going to be with respect to the Vacancy Act. That is that he was-the Vacancy Act appointment would expire. He would not be the CEO after March 31, 1994. That would mean, because the statute of limitations bad been extended at that point, that he would not be involved in the civil investigation. I made that call. And Mr. Eggleston called me, but as I-it wasn't a flurry of activity. These were two short calls. Senator GRAmm. Here's my question. We're trying to ascertainwe weren't there. We don't know-we're trying to ascertain how it could be that Mr. Altman could answer the way he did. When Mr. Altman was asked, "How many contacts have you had with the White House about this whole issue of Madison/Whitewater/RTC?" he answers, "One substantive meeting," and then on follow-up, he says, "Only one contact," and yet, the day before-we're not talking about weeks that people could forget, we're talking about the day before. We've got documentation on four contacts, two of which you, were a part of., and yet, nowhere do we see mention of these lour contacts, even I In of these letters, four letters later. I'm not aware, that any of these contacts, which occurred the day before Mr. Altman testified, were mentioned to us by Mr. Altman. He said there had been one substantive meeting, and that was this February 2, 1994, meeting, but yet, we now know there were four contacts, at least, the day before he was here before the ComMittee. The subject matter of most of those contacts was recusal, and yet, be sits there and never mentions recusal in his answers, and you're sitting behind him. Never does 'he mention the subject matter, which clearly dominated the Treasury Department, or his little Can Piece of it, for that entire day, beforehand. an you explain
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(19:51:28) Hearing resumes The CHAIRMAN. Let me invite all those in the room to find seats, so that we can resume. Let me now yield to Senator Sarbanes. from Maryland. Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanson first of all I want to follow up on this transcript,, issue, Did you try to get a copy of the transcript? 141 Ms. HANSON. I did, repeatedly. Senator SARBANES. From whom? Ms. HANSON. I asked my special assistant. Senator SARBANES. Did they come to the Committee to try to get a copy of the transcript? Ms. HANSON. Sir, I don't know. I don't know what was done. I do know that I asked, repeatedly, for a transcript, and I didn't have one nor, to my knowledge, did anyone in Treasury have one. Senator SARBANES. I assume the people in the Treasury were expecting you--do you know who Fran Davis is at Treasury? Ms. HANSON. No, I don't, sir. Senator SARBANES. I've been handed a note that a transcript went to Treasury the next day. Ms. HANSON. I did not have a copy. In fact, when Mr. Podesta's call came in, Mr. Foreman and I had to search the videotape in order to locate the Bond--Senator Bond's questions, which was all that we did and the only part of the tape that I looked at. Senator SARBANES. Did Podesta's call reflect that be had a copy of the transcript? Ms. HANSON. I didn't talk with Mr. Podesta. I didn't know that he had a copy of the transcript, sir. If I did, I would have asked him for a copy. Senator SARBANES. When did you become the General Counsel of the Treasury? Ms. HANSON. I was sworn in June 1, 1993. Senator SARBANES. I gather earlier in the day, you had testified that you didn't know either Mr. Altman or Secretary Bentsen. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator SARBANES. How was it you came to be-how did it develop that you became the General Counsel of the Treasury? Ms. HANsON. I was recommended by Robert Muntime, who had been the General Counsel of the Treasury during President Carter's Administration. Senator SARBANES. Then what happened, you were interviewed by Ms. HANSON. I was interviewed by Mr. Altman and, subsequently, by Secretary Bentsen. Senator SARBANES. Were you, at any point in your own mind, acting as General Counsel to the RTC? Ms. HANSON. No, never. Senator SARBANES. What was your thinking when you were counseling Altman in Altman's role as the CEO of the RTC? Were you, in fact, counseling him in that role? Ms. HANSON. I was involved, from time to time, in matters that he asked me to be involved in, yes, sir. Senator SARBANES. In what capacity were you doing that? Ms. HANSON. I understood that I was always acting in my capacity as the General Counsel of the Treasury, that was Senator SARBANES, In what capacity was Altman acting when fie was involved in those matters? Ms. HANSON. He was acting, I believe, in his capacity as the Interim CEO of the RTC. 142 Senator SARBANES. How, then, could you have been counseling Altman as General Counsel to the Treasury' when he was acting in his capacity as the Interim Head of the RTC? Ms. HANSON. He had the authority, statutory authority, to call on the services of Executive Department personnel and other Executive Branch personnel. He called upon my services, and I gave them. There was a need, and I supplied it.
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:10:55) Senator DoMENici. Do you have any information as to why, on March 1, 1994, at the White House, there was a meeting of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven people, about correcting this record, and you were not there? Ms. HANSON. I haven't any idea. Senator DomENici. I have an understanding that on March 1, 1994, Messrs. Podesta, Lindsey, Nussbaum, lGein, Sloan, Eggleston, and Meyers had a 2-1/2hour meeting. There had been negative press about Mr. Altman's staying at the RTC, and there was concern about Mr. Altman's inaccurate testimony. It goes on to say that, Mr. Podesta was to call Mr. Altman and tell him of the three errors and to correct them, but when Mr. Podesta called Mr. Altman, Mr. Altman did not want Mr. Podesta to give him facts that he didn't already have about the criminal referral. Do you have any information about that? Ms. HANSON. I have no information about that. I understand I have understood, now, in the course of this process, that the White House did have a copy of the transcript, but, as I say, I didn't have a copy. Senator DOMENICI. When you went to the meeting at the White' House on February 2, 1994, the big meeting, did it bother you at all that nobody was there representing the RTC, other than Mr. Altman wearing his two hats; that there was no counsel from the RTC, nobody other than you, as Treasury's Legal Counsel, and together you at all that the meeting was taking place at him? Did it the White House, with about seven personnel of the White House, and the RTC wasn't present? Ms. HANSON. No, sir. In fact, I thought it was appropriate that the RTC General Counsel was not in attendance at that meeting because she was supervising the ongoing civil investigation an had substantive knowledge in terms of what was being done in the investigation. The only purpose of the discussion in the White House was statute of Citations, procedural issues, and Mr. Altman's recusal. I bad counseled him on the recusal and on the statute of limitations discussions. It was a briefing on the law as applied to the Madison matter, a pure application of law to facts, and I was fully able to do that. Senator DOMENICI. Was there not a discussion, at that meeting, about whether or not the RTC bad sufficient facts, and had inves- 147 tigated the case thoroughly enough, to file by the statute of limitations date of February 28, 1994? Ms. HANSON. No, I previously testified that one of the talking points said that it was not clear when the investigation would be completed, but it would be completed by February 28, 1994, which was information that had been given to Congress the prior day. Senator DOMENICI. So, if Mr. Ickes recalls that, at that meeting, it was discussed in a contrary manner-that, in fact, Mr. Altman gave him information, in his opinion, that says the case won't be ready-then, Mr. Ickes is wrong? Ms. HANSON. Mr. Ickes is mistaken. It didn't happen-that discussion didn't happen in my presence. Senator DOMENICI. All right. Did you have any conversations regarding the entire issue of Mr. Altman's recusal, and the related matters that were discussed on February 2, 1994, with any other members of the White House staff who were not in attendance at that meeting? Ms. HANSON. Not to my recollection, no. Senator DOMENICI. Did you get any calls from any other White House people, who were not present at that meeting, about that? Ms. HANSON. Not about the-the subject of the meeting? Senator DOMENICI. Yes. Ms. HANSON. No. Senator DOMENICI. The people there were Mr. Nussbaum, Mr. McLarty, Mr. Ickes, Maggie Williams, and Neal Eggleston. Did you receive any calls from any other White House personnel?
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(19:55:10) Senator SARBANES. Let me go to this conversation with Nuss- baum. There's a newspaper story today, and we have, in our file a questions and answers- which you apparently prepared to put' yourself through the drill, as I understand it. Let me just read them. This is in reference to the conversation with Nussbaum: Question: Who in Treasury or the RTC knew that you had this conversation? Answer: I don't recall that I told anyone of the conversation. Question: Did you tell Mr. Altman? Answer: No. Question: Did anyone ask you to have this conversation? Answer. No. What are we to make of this practice questions and answers which I've just read to you and which, I understand, were foundcame from your files? Ms. HANSON. Those questions and answers I prepared for myself in the middle of the night on had ' arch 1-2, 1994, as my initial attempt to try to recall the events that had occurred last fall. This was following the call that John Podesta made to Roger Altman, and our locating Senator Bond's questions and transcribing them from the tape. I had not thought about those events for a very long time. It was my first attempt to try to refresh my own recollection. They were prepared for my own use for that purpose of trying to begin the process of refreshing my recollection as to what happened. Over the course of the next several days, as I continued to think about the events that occurred last fall, it became clear to me and I did-that I did have a recollection of speaking with Mr. Altman on this matter. I did not have a recollection of reporting back to him and, in fact, probably the reason that I didn't have the recollection is because there's a memo, I wrote him a memo, and that is the September 30, 1993, memo which was not discoveredit was discovered in my files, but not until we were searching the files to respond to the subpoena after March 4, 1994. Senator SARBANES. Am I to understand that you wrote these questions and answers to, in effect, set out your version of what occurred, and these are all, on the basis of what we have before us, wrong? Is that correct, every one of these answers are wrong? Ms. HANsON. Sir, as I stated, it was my initial attempt at trying to recall the events that had occurred last fall and had initial recollection, as stated in those questions, was wrong, which is why I am so understanding of Mr. Altman not remembering the conversation. But I do, clearly, have a recollection of having the discussion with Mr. Altman, and that came to me over the period of the days following the preparation of those questions and answers as I was searching my own recollection. Senator SARBANES. But you recollected that you had the discussion with Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. HANSON. Yes, I did. 143 Senator SARBANES. In fact, you've set out a question, "But didn't you expect him to tell others, in fact, didn't you expect that he would tell others in the White House?" You answered: "I didn't expect him to do that. I expected that he would use the information to prepare himself for an inquiry." Then, you go on to say, "Who in Treasury or the RTC knew you had this conversation." "I don't recall that I told anyone of the conversation." "Did you tell Mr. Altman." "No." "Did anyone ask you to have this conversation." "no." Now, you're telling us that Mr. Altman asked you to have this conversation. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. That's correct, Senator SARBANES. Now, you're telling us that you then told Mr. Altman about it. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Those, as I stated, were prepared I took a laptop computer home from the office. Those were prepared in the middle of the night on March 1-2, 1994, when I was first trying to start the process of refreshing my recollection as to the events that occurred last fall. Over the period of the next several days, as I continued to search my memory, recollections came back to me. In the process of preparing for testimony before the Grand Jury, and continuing to search my recollection, I continued to recall more details. That's not an unusual process.
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:00:43) Senator SARBANES. I understand that, but the point is not insignificant. Because your initial version, if I take what you said here, is that you talked to Mr. Nussbaum as it were, on your own volition, that you were an independent actor bringing to Mr. Nussbaum's attention the information which you had learned from the RTC. Would that be a correct reading if I accept these questions and answers? Ms. HANSON. That was my initial recollection, and it was not right, sir. Senator Sarbanes. How could you go astray on such an important point as to whether, in talking to Mr. Nussbaum, you were an independent actor proceeding on your own volition, as these questions and answers would suggest, or, as your questions and answers now suggest, that you were acting at Mr. Altman's behest and direction? Ms. HANSON. Sir, I have a clear recollection of having had a conversation about this matter with Mr. Altman. I would not have gone to see Mr. Nussbaum without the authorization and direction of Mr. Altman. I did not have that kind of relationship with Mr. Nussbaum. My contacts with him were extremely limited. Senator SARBANES. I understand that. Then why Ms. HANSON. In addition, the memorandum of September 30, 1993, that was subsequently located, confirms that Mr. Altman was aware of my conversations with Mr. Nussbaum and specifically states that I bad spoken with Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Sloan. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I'm trespassing on people's time. If I could just ask The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Just one more, but I am going to try to keep this more in bounds. Why don't you go ahead and do that. Senator Sarbanes. As I understand it, at some point you said 0 that going To talk to Mr. Nussbaum is not something I would do of my own volition. Is that correct, you testified to that effect? Ms. HANSON. I have just stated that I Senator SARBANES. You've said it now and youve said it where, too, I think in your deposition. Ms. HANSON. I don't recall that, sir. Senator SARBANES. But your view, now, is that this is not some-thing you would have done of your own accord? Ms. HANSON. That's my view. Senator SARBANES. Then, how did you set out a set of questions and answers which would suggest that you did do it of your own accord? Ms, HANSON. As I stated Senator SARBANES. Leaving aside this recollection problem, obviously, this set of answers, in effect, makes the point that you went on your own. You're now telling us you certainly would never go on your own, because that's not something you. would do. How, then, did you set out a set of questions and answers whose essential premise is that you acted on your own? Ms. HANSON. As I stated, that was my initial attempt to start refreshing my recollection. I have also stated that I accept full responsibility for making the decision-for talking with Mr. Nussbaum. I wouldn't hide behind an authorization from Mr. Altman as a shield for doing that. But I do, sir, have a clear recollection of having spoken with him. That came to me within the days after I prepared those questions and answers as I was searching for an understanding and a recollection of what the events in the fall, actually, had been. Senator SARBANES. My time's up. Thank you. Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, just a point of inquiry, how long do you intend to go tonight? The CHAIRMAN. I'd like to finish with this witness, if we can. It will depend, partly, on how many more Senators want to have a question period. I don't have a clear indication of that yet, but I'd like to try to finish with this witness tonight so we can start with a fresh panel tomorrow morning. We have Treasury witnesses scheduled, so I think we should try to do this if we possibly can. If the Members want to give me an indication, one by one, as to how much time they need---I think we've covered a good bit of ground and I don't want to foreclose any Senator, nor will I. I'll stay as long as it takes, and if the witness needs additional periods to nave a break, we'll do that as well. We've got to get this work done because we've got other witnesses we've got to bear from, Senator SASSER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, have all Senators had one round of questioning now? The CHAiRmAN. We've had the equivalent of that, although on the Republican side
Cleaning the streets
Littering
Signs - i.e. Keep America Clean
Men talking about littering
Wasting trash box
Littering country road
Man ordered by police to clean trash on road
Man ordered by police to clean trash on road
Trash dump
Littering the city street
Littering lake
Littering the zoo
Littering sea shore
Drivers littering
Littering picnic places
Littering the bridge
People talking about littering