Advanced Search
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:00:46) Ms. HANSoN. Actually, sir, it didn't. That letter was written for a specific purpose, to let the Committee know that there was going to be a newspaper article, that appeared the following day, that talked about the two fall contacts. That's why the letter was written. It was not written with any intention of clarifying or supplementing the record completely. It required looking at the transcript and doing Senator GRAMM, You're saying be would not have written this letter had the article not been coming out the next day that contradicted his testimony? Ms. HANsON. I have testified that what we expected to happen was to get a cop copy of the transcript, review that copy of the transcript, and supplement it as was necessary. We were waiting for written questions. We bad been told that we would receive many written questions, and we intended that to be completed in an orderly, thorough, professional process. Senator GRAMM. Didn't you review the videotape the next day? Ms. HANSON. I did not. The CHAMMAN. Did Mr. Foreman say that she had? Senator GRAmm. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Apparently, there is-someone had indicated that their belief was that you had viewed it, but your testimony here, today, is you did not view the videotape after the hearing? Ms. HANsON. No. It's my recollection that Mr. Foreman taped that video--made that videotape over the weekend, because the hearing was played on Saturday night, and I believe be's just mistaken. I was doing other things on the day after that Friday, and Wouldn't have had 41/2 hours to watch it. The CHAMMAN. Did you then see it at some later time? MS. HANSON, I did not. Senator GRAMM. Let me go back to my point, I think what we're all trying to get at here is, you, in essence, have said that you knew during Mr. Altman's testimony, that there had been more than one meeting You knew there had been more than one subject that had been discussed. You knew that with certainty, but it didn 't matter because you were going to have an opportunity-Mr. Altman was going to have an opportunity to go back and clarify it. Mr. Altman had an opportunity to clarify in the letter he wrote and did not. He had an opportunity on March 3, 1994, in another letter he wrote, but didn't clarify, and he bad another opportunity in another letter he wrote on March 11, 1994. At what point are you accountable for what you, say? Do we take this position that, come before the Committee, say anything you want to say 130 something that is verifiably false and, then, you can send the committee three letters without ever going back and saying, " wrong"? If, at some point in the future, you come back and, a clarify the record, then is it all well and good? Can you say when you were asked the question and provided answers that were wrong on the two points you made, first, that there bad been only,,,; one substantive contact and, again, repeated in a follow-up ques- tion from Senator Domenici. that there had been only one contact? We now know there may have been 20 or 40 contacts. Second, Mr. Altman volunteered, himself, that there had only been one subject matter discussed, and he didn't mention recusal at all. Are you really saying that none of that mattered, three letters, a clear and reiterated testimony, because you could still later send another let.' ter to strike it all out? Ms. HANsON. Sir, thats not what I've said. That's not at all what I've said. What I've said, is that it required getting the testimony and looking at it. Before I had the opportunity to look at the testimony, Grand Jury subpoenas were served. I never had the opportunity to complete the process and review the transcript. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm, I'm going to give you the time you need, although the time has expired and I should rotate now, but Senator GRAMM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN, -you're not going to be foreclosed from further RTC questions if you have them. Senator GRAMM. I have here-and correct me if I'm wrong-and this is the testimony-that the White House had the testimony on March 1, 1994. Maybe you ought to pass this up as well. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm, what I've got to do, because the time has run well over, I think, is rotate and then come back to your side. Senator Kerry.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:05:19) Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanson, I think you should know that the concerns expressed by the Senator from Texas are shared by all the Members of the Committee, and I think that there is a very deep concern here about-particularly in light of Senator D'Amato's statement about a conversation the night before-about the candor of that statement. We're, obviously, going to pursue that further. I'd like to go to another area that I think is as central as the area that the Senator from Texas was asking about. I notice, from your curricula, that you've bad a significant amount of legal experience and a terrific career, ranging from work in probation and as a legal defender and in a private law firm, a distinguished private law firm. But you've never served as a regulatory lawyer or as a lawyer responsible for regulatory oversight. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. No, sir, I have not. Senator KERRY. It strikes me that there is, in this series of events, perhaps confusion that inadvertently overtook you and the Treasury Department with respect to which bat you were wearing, at what point in time, whether you were representing Mr. Altman as Counsel to the Treasury or whether you were representing him as he played out his role for the RTC. It troubles me greatly-let 131 me ask you, were you aware that the criminal referrals were confidential? Ms. HANSON. Yes, sir, and I believe I acted in accordance with the confidentiality requirements. Senator KERRY. You knew the RTC had a procedure with respect to keeping it confidential, other than the possibility of leaks? I mean, the procedure of the RTC was to maintain confidentiality because, after all, they are merely referrals to the Justice Department, and any name in them could indeed wind up in somebody's reputation being injured, so confidentiality is critical. Ms. HANSON. Yes. Senator FERRY. You only learned about that in your capacity of the RTC hat. Is that not accurate? Ms. HANSON. I learned about it in my capacity as the General Counsel of the Treasury. Mr. Altman asked Senator KERRY. Would the General Counsel of the Treasury normally be told about RTC procedures of criminal referrals? Ms. HANSON. Mr. Altman asked Senator KERRY. Would you answer my question? Would they normally Ms. HANSON. No, they would not. Senator KERRY. Was this the first criminal referral you were ever told about? MS. HANSON. I knew about other criminal referrals, none involving insolvent thrifts. Others, involving personnel action. Senator KERRY. Did you receive telephone calls from the RTC notifying you of other criminal referrals? Ms. HANSON, Not to my recollection. Senator FERRY. This is the only one the RTC notified you about? Ms. HANsON. As it relates to insolvent thrifts, yes, sir. Senator KERRY. Did you never sense, as a lawyer, a responsibility that you had gained information only in your regulatory capacity, but you were, in fact, imparting it to people who, in one form or another, fell under that regulatory capacity? Ms. HANSON. Sir, it's my understanding that the RTC is not a regulator. The RTC, in the capacity in which it was acting Senator KERRY. It has the power of subpoena-----Ms. HANSON. It does have the power of subpoena. Senator KERRY. The power of bringing criminal referrals, the power of bringing civil suits, and you don't call it a regulator? ~ Ms. HANSON. It's not my understanding that it is a regulator, sir. It does have those powers, you're absolutely right, but I-my complication of that information was solely or a governmental purpose, and the Office of Government Ethics has so concluded itself. Senator KERRY. I'm not sure I agree with their assessments, I Might add to you. I've read it very closely, and the assessment of the memo that went to Mr. Altman talks about legal requirement, and is based strictly on a legal finding. But ethics, conflict of intresst and propriety hang on appearances that go well beyond legal requirements. That is, undoubtedly, what brought you, Secretary of the ~ Treasury Bentsen, Ms. Kulka, and Mr. Ryan all to conclude that Mr. Altman ought to recuse himself, is it not? HANSON. No, sir. 132 Senator KERRY. You didn't think there was potential conflict here beyond legal? Ms. HANSON. Mr. Altman was given a written opinion ultimately, oral initially, and then written opinion, by the ethics officers, stat- ing that his recusal was not mandated by ethics, law, or regulation. If I just might finish, sir, and it went on to say that the appearance issue has to be decided -the standard for determining whether there's an improper appearance is decided on the basis of a rea- sonable person in possession of all the facts and circumstances,
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:10:53) Senator KERRY. I understand Ms. HANSON. -and that was Mr. Altman's judgment to make, whether or not he could act impartially. My recommendation was based on my view that there was going to be such public clamor and political criticism, that he couldn't-that the appearance was that he couldn't be impartial Senator KERRY. But that is Ms. HANSON. -not that he, in fact, couldn't be impartial. Senator KERRY. I understand that, but that is exactly at the cen. ter of the kind of choice you make in a recusal. I mean, you're a la lawyer. You understand that appearance of a conflict is as essential to tie choice as the actual conflict. Ms. HANSON. Again, from the ethics point of view Senator KERRY. Don't you? Do you understand that? Ms. HANSON. That the appearance is as central as the conflict? Senator KERRY. Yes. Ms. HANSON. Yes, but in making that assessment, under the ethics rules, the standard is a reasonable person in possession of all the facts. Senator KERRY. As reasonable a person as you were, as reasonable a person as Secretary Bentsen was, as reasonable a person as Ms. Kulka was, and as reasonable a person as Mr. Ryan was, everyone thought there should be a recusal. I don't have enough time here, unfortunately, to pursue this, but I want to come back to something else that strikes me as really central. I wish we had a little more time to develop this, but on September 27, 1993, you told Mr. Altman what you had heard from Mr. Roelle, and on September 29, 1993, you saw Mr, Nussbaum, and talked about press leaks. On September 30, 1993, there was the Early Bird copy that came around. On October 6, 1993, there was a call from Mr. Roelle about Sue Schmidt. Then, you called the White House and talked to Cliff Sloan. That was the third notice the White House received. On October 11 or 12, 1993, there was a call to the Altman office, Jack DeVore was there talking about The New York Times. Then, there was a subsequent meeting October 14, 1993, and there was a White House meeting, and there was another White House meeting. It just strikes me that there's an incredible amount of scurrying around for a very simple thing. If, as you have said, this was confidential, it was not to be put out in any way, then it strikes me that, much as Mr. Bennett has said, it's very simple. I mean, you don't comment on these things. There's nothing to talk about, and you certainly don't sit down for meetings with Chiefs of Staff of various players and other people to discuss "even procedure," not substance, as you put it. 133 If, indeed, that procedure is a decision that belongs within the agency, the RTC, not even fundamentally, but broadly speaking given the conflict potential within Treasury, it strikes me there's an awful lot of meetings here for people to deal with the press when the whole thing is supposed to be confidential. Ms. HANsON. Sir, I only know of two meetings. Senator KERRY. You were meeting, on many occasions, within ou met, as I say, with Mr. DeVore, with the Secretary. Correct? you, made telephone calls. I mean, the whole purpose of this, I thought, was to understand bow to deal with press inquiries. Is that correct? Ms. HANsON. The whole purpose of it was to put people on notice so that they could intelligently deal with press inquiries. Senator KERRY. I notice they got a lot of notices. The only answer for those in the White House is, "This is under the RTC. it's inap propriate for us to know-we can't know anything about it. We 't know anything about it, and that's it." I 'don't understand why the people who are supposedly the subject, conceivably, of a decision the RTC made, are learning about the statute of limitations choices in front of the decisionmaker. Ms. HANsON. Are you talking about the February 2, 1994, meetin 9 Senator KERRY. That happened at the February 2, 1994, meeting. That's correct, It also happened-yes, at the February 2, 1994, meeting. Ms. HANsON. The February 2, 1994, meeting, sir, was entirely procedural.
Here He Comes, There He goes
The fastest man on wheels sets a new world's record. Donald Campbell sends his "Bluebird" over the sands of Lake Eyre in Australia at a speed of 403 mph. This is 360 mph faster than the speed record once held by his late father, Sir Malcolm Campbell. Mechanics fine tuning the car, the motor and the wheels and what ever else needs to be checked out. MS - Donald Campbell readies his Blue Bird. MS - A tractor like machine is smothing out the surface so when the Blue Bird is speeding down the sands it will be easier to keep the car in control. MCUS - Donald Campbell sitting in the cock pit of the car. MS - The Back end of the car, he starts up the engion and he starts driving the Blue Bird. That's one big car and its very plane like. MLS - On the first pass the car is traveling 400 MPH. CUS - Camera man folling the car going down the track.
US Track Triumph: Swamp Russia With Record Score
The United States is host to athletes from the soviet Union as the two countries meet at Track and Field for their sixth annual sports spectacle. In this short period the games have taken on all of the glamour of the Olympics and 55,000 spectators see the U.S. win by a record score: 187 to 156. Among the thrilling events are two world records: In the pole vault Fred Hansen goes 17 feet, 4 inches to better his old mark; in the shot put Dallas Long comes through with four prodigious tosses and sets a new world record, a fantastic 67 feet, 10 inches. Over all view shot of Dodger Stadium where people are starting to fill up the seats. Sports applauding. Women's 100 meter dash. People with hats and sun glasses on. Men's 100 meter dash. 110 high hurdles, men and it turns out US first and second place. Fred Hansen goes over the pole and smashes his own record. Shot Putter, throws and breaks a record. Sport fans applauding. High jumper. 1500 meter run. The US wins the race.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:15:23) Senator KERRY. I understand that. My question to you, was it appropriate? What, in your mind, strikes you as appropriate in the various parties that were present discussing that particular issue at that moment in time? That's what I'm having difficulty with. Maybe you can tell me. Ms. HANSON. If you recall, duriin~ that period of time, Senator D'Amato and I believe eight other congressmen had written a letter to Janet Reno, the Attorney General, with a copy to Mr. Altman ' relating to the statute of limitations with respect to Madison Guaranty, on the criminal side and on the civil side and pointing out that the civil statute of limitations bad been extended for a period of 5 years but was going to expire soon. Over a period of several weeks, those latter weeks in January, there were increasing there was increasing interest, press attention, and congressional interest in what the statute of limitations was, when it expired. As Senator D'Amato said-I heard him earlier today-there was some discussion as to whether it expired in August, and why this had all become an issue. It was not clear to anyone, other than someone who sat down and studied it, why it was that this had, all of a sudden, become an issue and was-there was such a sense Of urgency about it. It was misunderstood. It was misunderstood by most people who were involved in the process. The sole reason for talking with the White House people about the statute of limitations issue was to make sure that they understood it, that there were going to be decisions that were going to have to be made. There were going to be actions taken, in a relatively brief period Of time, that were going to have repercussions. 134 Senator KERRY. My time is up. I don't want to abuse the time again. I would just say to you, that the kind of meeting that took place ace still strikes me as somewhat excessive and even strange. There are ways to communicate that information that would not raise the kind of questions we are now here trying to answer. I think, in terms of antenna-the antenna on this was either not up or very finely tuned or we wouldn't be here. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Kerry. I think, for the record, I should just include one item that we touched on a moment ago, and that's on viewing the videotape of the hearing after the hearing. I our deposition, Ms. Hanson, you were asked the ques- tion, was there ever a time you remember sitting with Mr. Fore- man with a videocassette recorder playing a videotape of the C- you Span hearings of the record," to which you, answered, "It was immediately after the conversation with Mr. Altman that I've just recounted." That was over on another page but it indicates that happened early the following week after the hearing This is what Mr. Foreman said. He was as asked the question as well, and he said: I believe that some of the hearings. were replayed that night and I made a tape of it. I think it was that Thursday night. I think I watched some portions of it. I replayed it the next morning, in the Ace, and Ms. Hanson was particularly focused on Senator Bond's questions. In response to your question, sometime Friday morning. I guess I either heard from her what the question and answer was or perhaps saw it on the tape sometime Friday. I don't want to get hung up on this, but I think the record should clearly show that, after the hearing, there was some interval in which you reviewed all this, you were able to refresh yourself as to what was said, what the questions were, and what the responses were. I think, if we lay those aside, Mr. Altman's letters, clarifying in letters, the four of them that came, that there really-I don't think there's a plausible explanation as to why this record wasn't corrected very, very promptly. In fact, it should have been given in its complete form at the time, because he had the knowledge, you had the knowledge, the briefing material was there. It a all been gone over just ahead of time, but, certainly, after the fact, to have that kind of a delay occur. Then, all of these partial and incomplete letters come in. There's really no satisfactory explanation for that, that I can see, based on everything we've seen so far. I yield to Senator D'Amato. Ms. HANSON. May I respond? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, briefly. Ms. HANSON. I believe that Mr. Foreman-I know Mr. Foreman is mistaken about watching the video on Friday. I recall that it was the following week, I believe on March 1, 1994, and we were, specifically, looking for Senator Bond's questions. The CHAIRMAN. Here's my point to you, then. That's March 1, 1994. The first letter from Mr. Altman clarifying his testimony comes on March 2, 1994. A period of 10 days elapses when there was not only an incomplete but, I think, a misleading set of responses on record,
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:20:45) Ms. HANSON. Sir, it wasn't 10 days. If you recall, February 24, 1994, was a Thursday. On February 25, 1994, Mr. Altman recused himself at the end of the day on Friday, Then there was Saturday, 135 Sunday. Monday was February 28, 1994. Tuesday was March 1, 1994. That was when we played the tape, on March 1, 1994. So I The first letter came in on March 2, 1994. that was actually 3 days. ~ But, sir, I had been asking for a transcript. I asked, repeatedly, for a transcript. I don't know why I didn't get a transcript but I didn't have a transcript nor, to my knowledge, did anyone else in Treasury. Why the White House had a transcript on March 1, 1994, and I did not, I don't know. I asked for one repeatedly. I didn't have one. If I had one, I would have read it. The CHAIRMAN. I'm trespassing on the time. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Perhaps I misheard earlier. I thought you had stated that you had not seen this video at any time. Ms. HANsoN. No, I believe that I was asked whether I viewed it with Mr. Foreman the day after the testimony. Senator SARBANES. No, but I thought the question, then-perhaps I'm not recollecting well, but I thought the question then went beyond that, and asked more generally whether you had seen the video. Ms. HANSON, If it did) I would like to clarify the record. I did look at a portion of the tape with Mr. Foreman. I believe it was on March 1, 1994. Senator BENNETT. My memory is the same as the Senator from Maryland's I'm glad to have that clarification. The CHAiRmAN. It's late in the day and you've been here a long time. It's tiring. That's why it's important to pin these things down. If there's a mistaken impression, we can get it cleaned up, then, if there's a difference of opinion between witnesses, we can decide who's the most plausible, Senator DAmato, the time is on your side. Senator DAMATO. I'm going to yield to Senator Gramm, if I might, but I'd like to make an observation I think the Chair has pointed out. Senator Sarbanes. has alluded to it. Others have. It is inconceivable to me how, as a counsel and a distinguished and skilled lawyer-you didn't get to be General Counsel because you didn't have talent. You didn't have political connections. People were impressed, You had prepared Mr. Altman, and the issue of recusal was one of great significance. You testified to that. Later on, I'll get back to that. You testified he didn't undertake the recommendation You testified, when the Deputy Chief, Harold Ickes, said you should forget it "No, I won't. If I'm asked, I'm going to say it. Mr. Ickes understands." Regarding the February 2, 1994, meeting, the notes you prepared for it say, "I have decided I will recuse myself in the decisionmaking process," and then, you specifically said, "Yeah." You looked at Senator Bond, as he undertook this question again. You allowed a letter to go out which you helped to prepare and which came to the Committee on March 2, 1994, without any attempt, whatsoever, to correct that situation which you, were concerned about and which YOU watched on television with Mr. Foreman. Now, that is being, at the very least, less than candid and frank and gives us something that is so distorted, that it's not worthy in the least. I yield to Senator Gramm. That's my observation. 136 Ms. HANSON. Sir, may I respond? Senator D'AMATO. It's not a question. Ms. HANSON. May I respond? Senator D'AMATO. No, it's not a question, it's an observation. You can do it on someone else's time. Senator GRAmm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me go back and be sure that Senator D'AMATo. I have to tell you, if you want to respond, I still want to see that Senator Gramm gets his time. The CHAIRMAN. By all means. Why don't you go ahead and re-. spond. You can repond on my time and we'll protect Senator Gramm's-we're going tome Senator Gramm all the time he. needs on this issue. I've to him that, and I intend to see that it's done. Why don't you go ahead and make your comment, Ms. Hanson, then we'll go to Senator Gramm. Ms. HANSON. Sir, I take my responsibilities very seriously, and I did everything that I could, consistent with my responsibilities as I understood them. You may disagree, sir, but I believe that I dis- charged my responsibilities consistent with what they are. Events occurred that I didn't anticipate, and if they hadn't occurred, we wouldn't be here discussing this, but they did. Senator GRAmm. Mr. Chairman The CHAiRmAN. Senator Gramm.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:25:35) Senator GRAmm, Let me, first of all, clarify things. As I always tell my children, don't argue about facts; argue about theory. So, let me just clear up the facts. In the deposition of Clifford Sloan, he says that the White House had a rough copy of the transcript by Monday, February 28, 1994. We know that they bad the complete transcript by March 1, 1994, because Mr. Podesta put the copy of the transcript in a memorandum to the file. We know that, in fact, Mr. Podesta called Mr. Altman on March 1, 1994, and we know, from Mr. Cutler's testimony, that he said to him, that be expressed concern "with Mr. Altman's omission of the fall meetings and his possible recusal as a subject of discussion on the February 2, 1994, meeting." We know that Mr. Altman was called on March 1, 1994. We know there were at least two different copies of the transcript before March 1, 1994 and we know that you watched the tape on March 1, 1994, We know that, by February 28, 1994, Josh Steiner, who was the Chief of Staff at the Treasury Department, wrote the following in his diary. He wrote "At the hearing, the recusal, in amazingly, did not come up. The GOP did hammer away at whether Roger Altman had had any meetings with the White House. He admitted to having had one to brief them on the statute deadline. They also asked if staff had had meetings, but Roger Altman gracefully ducked the question and did not refer to the phone calls he had had." Now, the Chief of Staff knew that Robert Altman had gracefully ducked the question Ms. HANSON. Roger Altman. Senator GRAmm. Roger Altman. Please forgive me. I'm sorry I gracefully ducked the question. Two copies that Roger Altman had of the transcript were available. You had watched the tape, and yet, when the letter was written to us, nowhere-if I could have 137 the letter just one second-nowhere in this letter is there any ref. erence to the fact that you hadn't bad a chance to look at the transcript or look at the tape. In fact, not only are there two copies available, not only have you looked at the tape, but Mr. Podesta, from the White House called and said to Altman in a direct conversation, "We think, on two issues, that you didn't tell the Committee the truth: One ' you, didn't mention the two meetings"-and this language suggests that he, at least, believed that Altman knew about those meetings-"and you didn't mention one of the subject matters you talked about." And yet, Mr. Altman sends us a letter on March 2, 1994, where he never, ever mentions the issue of recusal. In fact, by what you said today, on the recusal issue as discussed on February 2, 1994, Mr. Altman had said that he wanted to recuse himself. It was discussed. You say he wasn't under pressure, but yet, 22 days later, when be appeared before this Committee, he hadn't done it and he didn't do it until we asked him the question. I guess what I'm getting back to is this: You're the Legal Counsel of the Treasury Department. As I understand it, your job is seeing that people comply with the law. I can't understand this letterI don't understand the testimony-I don't see how somebody could be asked, point-blank about contacts, and they say, definitively, there's only one, though now we know about dozens of them. I don't know how someone could say, three times, that he talked only about one subject, and that subject was the statute of limitations, when, in fact, tremendous amounts of discussion had gone on about recusal. I don't understand that, there is no explanation for this March 2, 1994, letter. At least I'd like to give you an opportunity again, now that nobody is confused about the fact that there are transcripts out there. You have seen the tape. Roger Altman received a telephone call from the White House warning him that he had not told the Committee the truth. Why this letter.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:30:56) Ms. HANSON. If I might, to make it clear, I did not watch the tape. The reason I know that it was March 1, 1994, 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)
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
City dump
Street cleaning
Trash truck - parked
1950s - Midwestern Street Scenes - City Streets
Cars driving up and down a city street; mountains in the distance. Caucasian males and females, adult and children, crossing city street; men and women entering Woolworth in BG.
Small Town
Small town 1950's
Has been transferred to Master 1044. Film original is stored in Southeast corner of vault -- near "Killing Floor".
Cleaning the streets
Littering