Advanced Search
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(20:56:27)(Tape #10063 begins) They had-because they had been modified, for my use, to just talk about the statute of limitations issue, so yes, they were almost identical. Senator Mup-RAY. Would it be correct to say that information provided at the February 2, 1994, meeting was being shared elsewhere, specifically, in Congress or congressional briefings? Ms. HANSON. It's my understanding that was correct yes. Senator MURRAY. I tend to agree with my friend, Senator Bennett, who said a little earlier, 'If these meetings hadn't occurred, we wouldn't have to hold these hearings." I wish those meetings hadn't occurred, and I think my family, at this point, wishes they hadn't as well, but I understand the motivation. I think I know what it's like. I think we all do, when a press story is shaped by leaks and the inclination is to coordinate a response. If you hadn't met, we'd probably all be criticizing the Administration for being disorganized. Let me ask you the one, really, relevant question here. Have you, Ms. Hanson, ever done anything, anything whatsoever, to impede or derail an investigation at the RTC or the Department of Justice? Ms. HANSON. Never. Senator MURRAY. To be complete, are you aware of anybody who is responsible for derailing or impeding an investigation into Madison? 160 Ms. HANSON. No. Senator MURRAY. Do you know of anybody or have you yourself ever seen the criminal referrals? Ms. HANSON. I have never seen the criminal referrals. Senator MURRAY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman from MY unique perspective way down here, it seems to me that the chairs are getting empty and the yawns are getting larger so I'II yield back my time. The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand you need to take a short break? Ms. HANSON. Yes. The Chairman. I don't want your lawyer deciding it. I want you deciding it, and there's a big difference between the two. I mean, I'd gotten an indication that you needed one, but if that's his thinking not yours, we're going to continue, no disrespect to him. Ms. HANSON. Let's continue for a few minutes. The CHAiRMAN. Very good. Senator Hatch, you're re going to finish your line of questioning now. Senator HATCH. I'll try to finish this time. Ms. Hanson, when we finished before, you had called Mr. Nussbaum on February 8, 1994, and I wasn't quite sure what your answer was, but as I understand it, at the time you called him, you were of the view, personally, that the RTC civil case would not be handed over to Mr. Fiske at that time. Ms. HANSON. I don't remember what my view was, at that point, sir. I've told you what I understood from Ms. Kulka. Senator HATCH. You don't recall conveying that to Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. HANSON. I don't. Senator HATCH. You're not denying that you may have conveyed it to him at that time, are you? Ms. HANSON. I'm not denying it. I don't recall. Senator HATCH. Let me jump ahead a few weeks to February 24, 1994, the day that Mr. Altman testified before the Banking Committee. On that day, you received a call from Neil Eggleston. Is that right? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator HATCH. On February 24 1994. He was an attorney in the White House Counsel's Office. Correct? Ms. HANSON. Correct. Senator HATCH. He was, then, working for Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. HANSON. Yes. Senator HATCH. And Mr. Nussbaum called to ask you whether former U.S. Attorney, Jay Stephens, was the lead outside counsel representing the RTC in the Madison Guaranty matter? Ms. HANSON. This was after the hearing on February 24, 1994, yes. Senator HATCH. It was clear to you that Mr. Eggleston viewed this as a problem, wasn't it? Ms. Hanson. He just asked me the question. Senator HATCH. He wasn't the only Administration official who complained to you about the RTC's hiring of Mr, Stephens, was he? Ms. HANSON. He was the only White House official that I spoke to about the matter. 161 Senator HATCH. But he wasn't the only one who complained to you about it, was he? Ms. HANSON. There were other people in the Treasury Department that I spoke to. Senator HATCH. Anybody else in the Administration? Ms. HANsON. In the White House, no. Senator HATCH. In fact, Joshua Steiner, the Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary Bentsen, bad told you that be thought Ellen Kulka should be fired for hiring Stephens, hadn't he? Ms. HANSON. Yes, he did.
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:00:37) Senator HATCH. Michael Levy or Levy-I don't know how you pronounce it-who also works at Treasury, was part of this discussion you and Mr. Steiner had with Treasury. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. I had several conversations with Mr. Steiner, but there was one where Mr. Levy was present. Senator HATCH. Mr. Levy pointed out that lawyers hire lawyers based on their expertise as lawyers. Isn't that, basically, what he said? Ms. HANSON. That's my recollection. Senator HATCH. You agreed with him. Right? Ms. HANSON. That's right. Senator HATCH. Around this time, either Mr. Altman or Mr. Steiner telephoned you to ask how Jay Stephens had been hired. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. I was asked. I don't recall if it was in a telephone conversation. Senator HATCH. Do you remember whether it was Mr. Altman or Mr. Steiner who called you at that time? Ms, HANSON. I don't recall. I believe that my conversations were with Mr. Steiner, but I don't recall. Senator HATCH. You told Mr. Altman or Mr. Steiner that Mr. Stephens was hired through the normal RTC contracting procedures. Isn't that what you said? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator HATCH. In fact, you said that you were certain this was the case. Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator HATCH. But Mr. Altman or Mr. Steiner, nonetheless, insisted that you check to see if there was anything irregular in the process in which Jay Stephens was hired. Ms. HANSON. I was asked to check Senator HATCH. Double-check it. Ms. HANSON. To double-check how he was hired. Senator HATCH. You understood, at the time, Mr. Steiner was extremely unhappy with the fact that Jay Stephens bad been hired. Isn't that right? Ms. HANSON. I wouldn't say-I wouldn't characterize it as extremely unhappy, but yes. Senator HATCH. He was unhappy. Ms. HANSON. Yes, be was unhappy. Senator HATCH. In another conversation with Mr. Steiner, be asked you whether the RTC civil action could be given to the Whitewater Independent Counsel, Robert Fiske, rather than Ellen Kulka or Jay Stephens. Isn't that correct? 162 Ms. HANSON. I understood the question was whether the Independent Counsel could assume jurisdiction of the RTC Investiga-tion. Senator HATCH. That was in another conversation with Steiner, he asked you whether the RTC civil action could be given to the Whitewater Independent Counsel instead of the other two, Kulka or Stephens. Ms. HANSON I understood it to be Stephens. Senator HATCH. Right. You also knew, didn't you, that Mr. Steiner was receiving calls from the White House about Jay, Stephens? Ms. HANSON. I understood that. Senator HATCH. Let me go back to that other question. In an- other conversation with Steiner, as I understand it, according to your deposition, he asked you whether the RTC civil action could be given to Whitewater Independent Counsel Fiske rather than to Kulka or Stephens. Do you remember stating that in your deposi- tion? Ms. HANSON. Rather than Stephens? Senator HATCH. Rather than Fiske excuse me, than Kulka or Stephens. Ms. HANSON. Rather than Stephens, not Kulka- Senator HATCH. Kulka and Stephens. Ms. HANSON. She's the General Counsel of the RTC. Senator HATCH. I mean Kulka and Stephens, yes. I think your deposition says , "I also recall a conversation with Mr. Steiner in which he asks whether the Independent Counsel could take over the civil investigation in lieu of Mr. Stephens," and it goes on from there. Do you remember saying that? Ms. HANSON. Do I remember saying what? Senator HATCH. In your deposition that I just read to you. Ms. HANSON. Yes, I do. Senator HATCH. And that's accurate? Ms. HANSON. To my recollection, yes. Senator HATCH. You also knew, didn't you, that Mr. Steiner was receiving calls from the White House about Jay Stephens? Ms. HANSON. Yes, sir. Senator HATCH. In fact, Mr. Steiner told you the people at the White House wanted to see if they could get rid of Jay Stephens. Isn't that correct? Ms. HANSON. That is correct. He did say that. He said-what I recall him saying is, "Do you believe that they want to see if they can get rid of Jay Stephens and everyone agreed and understood that was ridiculous." Senator HATCH. Do you recall what dates those conversations took place? Ms. HANSON. It's my recollection that they took place after the testimony-the end of the day-later in the day, on February 2 , 1994, possibly running over to the morning of February 25, 1994. Senator HATCH. And others may have been several days earlier? Ms. HANSON. Others? Senator HATCH. With Steiner? Ms. HANSON. No, they were all within a very close time frame. 163 Senator HATCH. But some of them may have taken place on February 25, 1994. MS. HANSON. I just don't recall, sir. It all happened within a very brief time frame.
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:05:12)(Tape #10062 ends) Senator HATCH. Just a couple other questions. Ms. Hanson, would you agree that one of the concerns underlying the confidentiality of criminal referrals is that the premature disclosure can jeopardize the prosecution itself?. Ms. HANSON. That's correct, sir. Senator HATCH. Did you not run such a risk when informed the White House of the proposed Madison referral on September 28 and 29, 1993? MS. HANSON. I know Mr. Nussbaum to be a man of great integrity, an able lawyer. That was the person that I was giving that information to. I expected that he would use that information only for the proper governmental purpose that I gave. In fact, every piece of information that I was given by Mr. Roelle has appeared in the newsprint somewhere so, if there was a problem with jeopardizing the prosecution, it happened from the leaks out of the RTC and not from my conversation with Mr. Nussbaum. Mr. Nussbaum and I are two officials of the Executive Branch who are both bound by the Office of Government Ethics regulations. Senator HATCH. Ms. Hanson, I was very interested in your statement to Senator Gramm, that the reason you contacted Bernard Nussbaum regarding the criminal referrals was that Mr. Nussbaum was the person at the White House in charge of investigations. I think that was the word you used. Ms. HANSON. I don't believe that's quite what I testified, sir. Senator HATCH. That was my recollection, maybe I misconstrued it, but that's --- if that was so, then, that may be a breach in the well- orchestrated claim by the Administration MS HANSON. What Senator HATCH. -that all actions were taken in anticipation of press leaks. I'm just noting that for the record. If you didn't, that's OK but that was my recollection. Ms. HANSON. What my testimony was, if I could just clarify it, please, is that the internal White House procedures designate Mr. Nussbaum, the Office of Counsel to the President, as the contact for any discussions relating to anything involving an investigation, so as a -he was, as I understood it, with respect to the internal White House policy, the person who was the appropriate person to contact. The CHAIRMAN. I just want to take a moment here. I was reviewing two documents that were given to me by the Counsel on the Republican side. We'll put the coding numbers in the record. One, is this list of talking points for Roger Altman's informational meeting with Mack McLarty, dated 2/2/94, at the bottom of which was this briefing point where Mr. Altman indicated that he had decided he was going to recuse himself from the decisionmaking process as Interim CEO of the RTC and so forth, Then there is a subsequent briefing document, which, apparently, was used by you and others up here on the Hill, that has the same items, although it drops off the last item, which is the recusal item. You made a passing reference, a few moments ago, 164 to a meeting with my staff and me at a point in February. I re-, member that meeting. I remember that meeting for the purpose of discussing the likelier hood of appointing a man named Larry Simons to head up the RTC. You were coming to indicate that you were looking at what his qualifications were how he might be received, and forth and so on. I remember no effort, whatsoever, to go down a process, like this discussion off of a set of talking, points, with respect to the discussions or points made by Republican Sen- ators on tolling agreements, Jim Guy Tucker, or any of this business. I mean, that wasn't the focus of the discussion that day, and I just don't want that inference left on the record. Ms. HANSON. If I could clarify, too, for the record as well Senator. The discussion-as I recall, the discussion was, in fact on Larry. Simons as a possible CEO nominee. I recall, at the end of the discussion, having a discussion with you and your staff on the fact that the statute of limitations was running on Madison Guaranty and that, in fact, work was being done, at that point, to ex'tend the statute of limitations, and that Mr. Altman was still involved in the process. But it was not-this was, clearly, not a meeting set up, specifically, to talk about that issue.
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:10:11) The CHAIRMAN. Let me be clear with you. I've been talking with the staff here. Apparently, in the course of the meeting on Mr. Simons, there was something else going on. He was having people make side phone calls on totally unrelated matters. I don't have any recollection of talking with you about these items on this list. I remember Larry Simons and that's it, and I think I would have a memory of this if I had been engaged in that conversation. To the extent you discussed it with staff Ms. HANSON. OK The CHAIRMAN. -that may or may not have happened but, the point is, there was no substantive discussion with me on the points on this list or I would clearly remember it. Is your recollection different than that? MS. HANSON. I recall, sir, that you were in and out. But I recall discussing at least a part of this with you being present. The CHAIRMAN. It rings no bells with me. I remember Larry Si- mons because we talked about it at some length. Wasn't that the purpose of the meeting, to go over Ms. HANSON. Absolutely, it was the purpose of the meeting and I understand not being able to recall things. The CHAIRMAN. I think I would recall this if you had come and given me a briefing-did you come and give somebody else in the Senate a briefing on this? Was this a talking point prepared for other meetings at other times? Ms. HANSON. It was prepared for other meetings at other timesI, personally, didn't talk with anyone else in Congress on it. The CHAiRMAN. When it has-there's a mystery document. On our side, next, is Senator Dodd. Did you want to be recognized? Senator Boxer, I guess, had wanted to be also Senator DODD. Just very briefly, and I'll yield time to my colleague from California. Sitting here, let me just express my own views as I listen and look at the cluster of issues before us. It seems to me, there are three issues, and others may find more. The 165 first issue is the question of statutory authority, which saddled you with, or transferred to you, this responsibility to act as a General Counsel of the RTC. 1, again, will emphasize the point I think oth-ers have made already, but it needs to be emphasized, and that is I find this to be a terrible sense of bad judgment. With hats switch-in all the time, to put people in that position is troublesome. There Le is at least a real potential for conflict of interest, not to men-tion the appearance of conflict of interest. Again, that's something we're going to correct with the law but, someone, in my view, should have had some ability to make a judegment call that this was inviting a problem. I think that's one duster of issues. The second, is congressional testimony. I was not at the meeting in which Senator Gramm, Senator Bond, and Senator Domenici raised the issues of questions to Mr. Altman, but I've been a Member of Congress for 20 years and have attended a lot of hearings over a lot of years, and I understand bow it's a little difficult for some of the staff to jump in when either one of us is asking a question or a witness is testifying I'm not going to argue about that particular moment. But, I've It to tell you, Ms. Hanson, I find it inexcusable that almost 3 weeks could go by without someone coming back on this issue. Others may wander around that set of questions. I find it hard to draw that conclusion. Third, with regard to the contacts at the White House, in my view, there were far too many meetings, far too many people, and far too vague lines that were drawn here. It seems to me, that's becoming obvious and it was sloppy. The old smell test, for those of us who have been around here. is should have been handled better than it was handled, Those are three clusters of issues that I find troublesome. I think it's also important to put everything in some sort of perspective. Even though a lot of time gets spent on these issues, I come back to the questions I asked you in my first round which come back to the issue of whether or not anything was done here to in any way jeopardize these criminal referrals or to in any way try to influence those decisions. Now, I know others have raised the issue we don't know if something was done. It's hard to prove a negative, and I'm waiting to see if any evidence emerges to see if something was done. To this juncture, nothing has. That, to me, is a very critical issue. So, while Im concerned about this testimony to Congress, I think that, in and of itself, is a set of legitimate issues to be addressed, and, certainly, the statutory authority and the contacts with the White House are also. This is awfully confusing to people watching and 'listening to it. At the end of the day, didi something happen here which jeopardized these criminal referrals? At this juncture, the testimony that all of you have given, under oath, before this Committee, is that nothing was done; no obstruction of justice to interfere with those criminal referrals. The bottom-line issue, at least as far as this Senator is concerned the ethical issues others are addressing, I think, are troublesome. And more than troublesome doesn't do them justice, because we send out messages to future witnesses about how to perform before congressional panels. But, on the bottom-line issue, on the serious, note of whether or not there was any damage done to 166 the legal process, I'm satisfied, at this juncture, that's not the case'. Regarding congressional testimony, there was bad judgment on statutory authority, and sloppy operations. I think there's a real concern. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Roth. Ms. HANSON. Could we break? Could we break for a few minutes, sir? The CHAIRMAN. Lees take a brief break and come back in. We're going to be here past midnight if we don't get back at it. The Committee stands in recess for a short period of time. (21:16:46) (21:16:48) Commentary of hearings hosts NINA TOTENBERG and KEN BODE, they also interview Senator JOHN KERRY [Recess.]
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:26:02) Hearing resumes: The CHAiRmAN. Let me invite everybody to get seated so we can resume. Ms. HANSON. Senator Riegle, if I might , Senator Dodd raised some points before the break, and I did not have an opportunity to respond to them, adequately. I would like an opportunity to do so. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Ms. HANSON. Senator Dodd raised three areas of issue. One is authority. The second is the testimony, and the third is the contacts. In terms of the authority, I had plenty of authority to do what I was doing There was no need for a particular detail. There is an Attorney General's opinion that says no formal detail is required and, in fact, informal details happen all the time. To the extent what I was doing was a detail, although I didn't consider it to be a detail, there was ample authority for me to do that without having to have a writing in place to evidence it. With respect to the second issue, the testimony, as I have testified, I did not have a transcript and, as a careful lawyer, if you can't look at it, can't read it, and can't hold on to it, then, you can't respond to it, and I was not able to respond to it. I didn't have it. As I've testified, on March 4, 1994, my participation in this came to an end. That was the end of my participation in this. I can't respond to why it took 3 weeks or why other letters came in. I did not participate in it. I was under instruction from my counsel, having received a Grand Jury subpoena, to cease all involvement and a conversations with anyone about this matter, and I did that. The CHAIRMAN. I might say, I think it's important that did It's a significant fact, and was appropriate for you to do. That should be acknowledged. Ms. HANSON. The third issue that Senator Dodd raised was the contacts. I was involved in three contacts. I was involved in a meeting with Mr. Nussbaum, the purpose of which was to report on press leaks. I was involved in a meeting on October 14, 1993, that I was invited to, addressing specific press inquiries going to Treas- which created the implication that Treasury was---or the Ad-ministration was interfering in the proper processing of criminal referrals. It was in the interest of the Government to make certain that a story with incorrect information, that cast that sort of light on the Administration, was not written. The third meeting was the February 2, 1994, meeting in which the statute of limitations was discussed. This was -purely procedural, an application of law to facts. Mr. Altman's recusal was also 167 discussed at this meeting. Those are the contacts I have had. I have had other miscellaneous conversations with people. I have talked with attorneys in the office of-in the Counsel to the President. In my view, not a single one of them is significant. Mr. Cutler has said there were too many contacts. They were not controlled. That may very well be. My contacts-I had three principal contacts, and I've gone over them-each one, in my view,had a proper governmental purpose, and was legitimate and appropriate. The CHAIRMAN. I'm going to Senator GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for 1 second. The CHAIRMAN. I will in a second. I'm going to clarify Senator BOXER. We have to -keep with the time.
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:30:17) The CHAiRmAN. We are going to stay with the time. With respect to the transcript from the hearing, the Treasury Department received a transcript, from this Committee, the day after the hearing. If you're the General Counsel over there, and I don't know how things get passed around within the Treasury Department, we have the name of the individual that received the transcript the day after the hearing, So, you should understand, the record should be clear that the Treasury Department had a full transcript 24 hours after that hearing. Why you didn't get it, or somehow were out of the loop on it, we can't begin to answer, but you should understand, the Department, for which youre the top lawyer, had one the day after the hearing. Ms. HANsoN. Senator Riegle, Mr. Altman didn't have one on March 1, 1994, either, so I don't know what happened to the transcript. The CHAIRMAN. You may want to go back tomorrow and ask Ms. HANsON. I Will, absolutely, go back and check this out. The CHAIRMAN. I want to go to the questions. I'm going to call on Senator Roth. Is it critical, Senator Gramm, or should we go to Senator Roth? Senator GRAMM. III wait and come back. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Roth. Senator RoTH. Yes. Mr. Chairman, last Friday, in my opening remarks, I expressed concern about two things. One, was whether our rules, policy, and guidelines on matters of ethics and conflicts of interest were adequate. Second, whether or not these rules were adequately enforced. As I listen to the testimony today, I become aware there have been some pretty strict policies established both in the RTC, as well as in the White House, but the thing that concerns me, Ms. Hanson, is I see very little evidence of any effort being made to enforce these rules and regulations. In the case of the RTC, it was established this morning that it is the policy of the RTC not to disclose criminal referrals, or information about their preparation, on an institution-specific basis. In answer to a question as to whether there were any exceptions to that policy, whether referrals extended to press inquiries, we were told there were no exceptions of any type. Now, my question to you is whether or not, in your discussions and determination of contacting the White House, the policy of the RTC came under consideration in any way? 168 Ms. HANSON. No, sir, but I believe the policy of the RTC, as I understand it, is that criminal referrals are to be confidential and that there is no exception for talking to the press, If that's the case, then that policy and that regulation were breached by the RTC employee, or employees, who gave the press all this information which was the reason that I ended up talking with Mr. Nussbaum. If that hadn't occurred, then the conversations wouldn't have taken place. Senator ROTH. At the time you contacted Mr. Nussbaum, was it clear that there had been a leak, and were you aware of what that leak was? Ms. HANSON. There was absolutely no question in my mind, at the time I spoke with Mr. Nussbaum, that either it had been leaked or was about to be leaked. That view was confirmed, the following day, by an RTC Early Bird. In addition as I've stated, the IG report-the IG chronology, that was released yesterday, showed reporter interest on September 23, 1993. Senator ROTH. But, if I understand your testimony, Ms. Hanson, at the time you called Mr. Nussbaum, you did not, specifically, know whether or not there was a leak. As you just said, either there had been a leak or you knew there was going to be a leak. Ms. HANSON. Whether I knew---- Senator ROTH. The facts are you did not, actually, know at that time. Is that not correct?
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:35:17) Ms. HANSON. That's correct, and it was not relevant to my decision because, if I had sat around and waited to make sure there was a press leak, by that time, it may have been too late Senator ROTH. Are you saying that you believe because there might be a leak Senator D'AMATO. Will the Senator yield for just a moment? I'd like to know, too late for what? You come and you say-and I understand the contention that if there are leaks, et cetera, but there was no leak. You say because nu feared there was a leak, therefore you could then cross this ne to brief someone. It's very questionable whether they should have been briefed about a potential leak. The Senator says, "Well, at that point in time there wasn't a leak." You said, "Yeah, that's right, but it would have been too late." Too late for what? Ms. HANSON. Sir, I didn't say, at that time, there wasn't a leak and, in fact Senator DAmATO. The Senator said, and it was his contention, there was no leak. The records indicate there was no public information out at that time, Now, question, you then said, 'Well I that's why we bad to do it now because, otherwise, it would be too late.", What do you mean by "it would be too late"? Ms. HANSON. Sir, what I meant was it was necessary in my view, that the White House be in a position to prepare themselves for possible inquiries, for inquiries that, in my judgment understanding the situation and having spoken with Mr. Roelle, were going to occur and, in the end, in fact, occurred. Senator DAmATO. But what did they say when Ms. HANSON. In answer Senator DAMATO. Wait a minute. Ms. HANSON. May I finish? Senator DAMATO. Yes, go ahead. 169 MS. HANSON. May I finish, please? In fact, it did turn out that reporters had incorrect information and, if they had printed the story based on the incorrect information they had, it would have put the Administration in a prejudicial light, the implication being that there Senator DAmATo. Did you correct Ms. HANSON. May I finish? Senator ROTH. Mr. Chairman, may I have my full time? The CHAIRMAN. We're on your time. Senator DAMATO. I'll yield him my time. Ms. HANSON. May I finish my statement? Senator SARBANES. Why don't we let Ms. Hanson complete her answer and go back to Senator Roth? The CHAIRMAN. You can complete your answer. Ms. HANSON. The information that the reporter bad was that the referrals were being held up at the RTC and not forwarded to the Justice Department. That was the inquiry that came into the Treasury. The clear implication of the question being that the Administration or the Treasury was interfering with the processing of the criminal referrals. It was in the interest of the Government, I believe, that this story, this reporter's information, be corrected, and that this story not be printed. That is one of the reasons why people are aware of information, so that they can deal with inaccurate press stories, or press inquiries, that if printed, would be prejudicial and damaging. The CHAIRMAN. You've made that point. I want to ask the clerk to restore some of Senator Roth's time, so that the time of your statement isn't charged against his statement. Senator ROTH. Ms. Hanson, in answer to my question, you said there was no factual knowledge at the time you made the contact. My concern, and my question, is if you don't need to have any actual leak or press inquiry, doesn't that exception swallow the rule? Doesn't the rule become a nullity? Would you answer? Ms. HANSON. Sir Senator ROTH. If at any time a person thinks there may be a press inquiry, an exception can be made to the rule of confidentiality, doesn't that really destroy the rule of confidentiality? Ms. HANSON, I don't believe that two Executive Branch officials speaking with each other on a matter relating to possible press inquiries or other governmental-in another governmental function breaches the confidentiality. Senator ROTH. That's not my question. Ms. HANSON. I'm sorry, sir. Senator ROTH. My question was, doesn't--if your logic is pursued, and an exception to the rule of confidentiality can be made any time there is a suspicion or belief that there is going to be a press leak, doesn't that destroy the rule of confidentiality, for all practical purposes?
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:40:41) Ms. HANSON. As I stated, I think that two governmental officials in the Executive Branch talking to each other doesn't destroy the confidentiality. Senator ROTH. Let me point out what the RTC stated, in a writing response to questions, after the February 24, 1994, hearing: 170 The disclosure of any information concerning a criminal referral may serve to alert a suspect that an investigation may be pending, enable the suspect to conceal evidence, or dissipate the proceeds of the crime, fabricate evidence, or otherwise impede the investigation. Aren't these legitimate concerns? Ms. HANSON. Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more. That is why the employee, or the employees, at the RTC who leaked this information to the press, I believe, should be investigated Senator ROTH. Did you discuss with anyone the RTC policy and how it should be applied to the immediate case? Ms. HANSON. No, sir I didn't believe I needed to. Senator ROTH. YOU didn't think you needed to, but that was the basic policy of the agency responsible for administering the law-, Ms. HANSON. Sir, I understood that two Executive Branch offi- cials could speak with each other in pursuit of a proper governmental purpose. Senator ROTH. Under that interpretation, couldn't you discuss a' referral at any time? If the rule is that two Government officials can discuss a criminal referral, then the rule, again, becomes a nullify, doesn't it? Ms. HANSON. I believe in that case, one has to look at the purpose for having the discussion. If there is a proper governmental purpose, then I believe a discussion can be had. I know, and it's the policy of the RTC and the Treasury, that criminal referral information is sensitive, and must be handled with extreme care. Senator ROTH. Would you extend this privilege to anyone but the President? MS. HANSON. Excuse me? Senator ROTH. Let me put it this way-, Would anyone else, who might be subject to a press inquiry, be entitled to the same kind of information? Ms. HANSON. Sir, it would depend on the situation. Senator ROTH. But there are circumstances in which you would answer in the affirmative? Ms. HANSON. There are situations absolutely, where the need to know information in order to be able to deal with press inquiries would be-is a proper governmental purpose, just as this one was. Senator ROTH. Let me ask you this: Are you familiar with the guidelines established by Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. HANSON. I don't know which ones you're referring to, sir. Senator ROTH. The memorandum from the Presidential Counsel Nussbaum entitled, "Prohibition of White House Staff Contacts with Independent Regulatory Agencies." It was dated February 22) 1993. Are you familiar with that memorandum? Ms. HANSON. Yes, sir. I don't have a copy in front of me, but I'm, generally, familiar. Senator ROTH. That memorandum says: There is generally no justification for any White House involvement in particular adjudicative or rulemaking proceedings at any agency. Therefore, as a general rule, no member of the staff should contact any agency in regard to any adjudicative or rulemaking, matter pending before that agency. Are you familiar with that language? Ms. HANSON. I've heard that language, sir. Senator ROTH. Did that rule come up in discussions at any time, either in the Treasury or with the White House? 171 Ms. HANSON. In terms of my conversation with Mr. Nussbaum? Senator ROTH. That's correct. MS. HANSON. There was no White House involvement in any adjudicatory process. There was no White House involvement, in this process, at all. Senator ROTH. But we are talking about the RTC. They are the ones that are the adjudicative agency, are they not? Ms. HANSON. Perhaps I should have a copy of what you're reading from in front of me. The CHAIRMAN. Let's get one for you. We extended the time period, to make up for the time, and its expired. I want to try to continue on. I don't want to be arbitrary, in terms of Senator Roth getting an answer to his question, but if you're going to have to study the document-Senator Roth
Green Sea Turtle
(TAPE 1) Galapagos - green sea turtle swimming
Iguana
(TAPE 1) Land iguana shedding its skin in patches, yawning
Swallow Tail Gull
(TAPE 1) Swallow tail gull and chick looking for food
Sea Lion
(TAPE 1) Sea lion sleeping using a rock for a pillow Sea lion with its head underwater, blowing bubbles
Iguana
(TAPE 1) Land iguana shedding its skin in patches on santa fe
Opuntia cactus
(TAPE 1) Flowers on opuntia cactus and pads
Sea Lions
(TAPE 1) Sea lions sleeping on the beach Sea lions on the surf
Iguana
(TAPE 1) 09:37:41 Young land iguana
Opuntia cactus
(TAPE 1) Huge opuntia cactus
Lava Lizard
(TAPE 1) Male lava lizard
Mockingbird
(TAPE 1) Mockingbird preening
Tourists and ships on santa fe
(TAPE 1) Tourists and ships on santa fe
Caterpillars
(TAPE 1) Caterpillars
Sea Lion
(TAPE 1) 09:44:02 Big male sea lion 09:44:38 Sea lion close up 09:45:16 Sea lion scratches an itch 09:45:39 Herd of sea lions, 1 comes up on the beach 09:48:12 Big bull comes up on the beach to his harem 09:50:06 Sea lion, close 00:00:39 Young sea lion looking for his mother 00:03:00 Young sea lion coated with sand 00:06:18 Sea lion and tour boats 00:07:51 Big bull 00:10:13 Sea lion rubbing its eyes to chase away flies
Dwarf paintbrush
(TAPE 1) Dwarf paintbrush in alpine ecuador
Flowers
(TAPE 1) Flowers