August 1, 1994 - Part 8
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.]