August 1, 1994 - Part 7
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:15:19) Senator DODD. I don't think Mr. McLarty was there. It was in his office, you testified, but he was not present. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator DOMENICI. Nobody else from' the White House has called ou about the subject matter of that meeting? Has anybody else been in contact with you? Ms. HANSON. As I testified, Neal Eggleston called me just before the hearing on the proposed answer to a question regarding the meeting, but other than that, no, sir. Senator DOMENICI. Just one last time, as you sat behind the table there, while Mr. Altman was testifying-and Secretary Bentsen was there, I recall it rather vividly-are you actually telling us today, that you did not clearly understand, right then and there, that he was not telling us all of the facts? Ms. HANSON. As I stated, sir, I realized that be bad not mentioned recusal. I did not know why he had done that. Senator DOMENICI. And you didn't choose to do anything about that until later on? Ms. HANsON. That's correct. I didn't think there was anything I could do about it, at that point, given the way he bad testified. Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAiRmAN, I think, in fairness to the witness, on this---and she can speak for herself, I'm not trying to speak for her-but she did say earlier, and it was confirmed in your deposition, that you felt, beyond a certain point, he had made such a declarative and definitive answer, if you will, that the moment bad passed where You thought you could intervene and, in a sense, broaden out the answer. Is that correct? 148 Ms. HANsON. That's coThe CHAIRMAN. I'm going to yield to Senator Bryan. Before I yield I just want to ask you if you think nk you've got the staying power tonight, to finish up this evening. I know this is a difficult exercise for you, and there are a lot of us and only one of you. I think it would be well if we could finish tonight, as opposed to carry 0 until tomorrow- MS. HANSON. That's fine. The CHAIRMAN. -but I don't want to do that if that--if you don't feel you want to stick it out here tonight. I don't know what your own energy level is in terms of responding. I'd like a little guidance from you. I'd like to finish, but I don't want to do that if it's beyond what you think your strength is here tonight Ms. HANsON. I'm prepared to continue, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you. Senator Bryan. Senator BRYAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of things I find to be quite troubling here. I'm very disturbed at the way in which Mr. Altman was handled, both your conduct, with respect to it, and his. Tomorrow, well have a chance to ask him some questions. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bryan, I'm having a hard time hearing you. I'm wondering if you could get closer to that mike? Maybe we could turn it up a bit. Senator BRYAN. Mr. Chairman, is this a little better? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, it is. Thank you. Senator BRYAN. What I just said is that, I find a number of things troublesome and particularly disturbing to me in the way in which the Altman testimony was handled, both Mr. Altman's conduct and your conduct. I don't find your explanation persuasive, but I don't want to dwell on that. I think a number of others have made that point as well. I'm also bothered with the contacts with the Administration. It may very well be, as you suggest, that an ethical standard was not breached, but there is an appearance of impropriety and I don't believe there was the sensitivity that there ought to , have been with respect to that issue. What I want to talk to you a little bit about, now, and get the benefit of your thinking, is an area that I've explored with several other witnesses and that is the relationship of the RTC to the Treasury. Those of us who were here in 1989, when we worked on the FIRREA legislation, certainly had the impression, I think it's fair to say, that we were creating an independent relationship between the RTC and the Treasury. Perhaps, as you've. indicated on page 2 of your testimony today, it was not as independent as, say, the SEC, because there was no fixed term. I think that is correct, but yet, clearly, there was an independent relationship contemplated. You, obviously, take a different point of view. Let me just say that, in this morning's testimony, a number of the witnesses who were questioned were concerned about the absence of that independent relationship they thought was important. Mr. Roelle commented, during the course of his testimony, that the RTC did not operate independently of the Treasury, "Everything we do is cleared by the Treasury." " Mr. Katsanos was very concerned about the relationship. He felt that, and inherently, and I'm 149 paraphrasing, the two hats that Mr. Altman wore made it a very difficult relationship, and even Mr. Ryan commented that he felt the lines of authority were blurred. The line of questioning that I'd like to pursue with you is what the nature of the RTC is. Is it simply a bureau, as one witness commented in disagreeing with that perception, is it just a bureau within the Department of Treasury, or is it just an entity within the Department? Give me the benefit of your thinking, of how you understand and how you perceive this relationship.