August 2, 1994 - Part 3
August 2, 1994 - Part 3
(12:29:24) Hearing resumes: The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume. Let me invite everyone to be seated. We have about 45 minutes before we must recess ,-Or the caucus luncheon meetings. 358 Senator Boxer. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR BARBARA BOXER Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, I hope you're going to keep your idealism and Your belief that serving Government is a noble thing to do. When I look at you and I --you remind me of two people that I have great re- spect for who are motivated, I believe, in the right way and care as you do, and that's my son and my daughter. One's a lawyer and the other one's in the movie business and we know there's a defi- nite connection between the two of those. What I guess I need to ask you is about your diary. My daughter' kept a diary. Once we sat down and went through this diary and I remember stating well, you didn't explain it to me exactly this, way and she said, "Mom, this is a diary." This is a diary. And as, I go through your diary, I notice there are certain words there that are kind of exaggerations. They're words you wouldn't use, it seems to me, in ordinary conversation or in the course of keeping track of what occurred in your business life, words like "disaster unfold." It's very dramatic, "powerless," "intense pressure," "tortured day," "get rid of him," "brutal." Now, these are words that one would use, it seems to me, in trying to recount feelings perhaps rather than exact interpretations of, what went on. It's the way you felt when somebody said a certain event happened. Am I right in making that conclusion about your diary? Mr. STEINER. I think you're largely correct, Senator. The purpose, as I said before, was to reflect back on recent events and to think about what lessons I might draw and what feelings I may or may not have had. It was also true that more dramatic language can be used as shorthand rather than describing the events in the exact detail in which they occurred. And despite the fact that I kept this for a long time, I did consider it somewhat of a chore at times and did not write as expansively as I might otherwise. Senator BOXER. I also note that in your diary, there are some things that no one is picking up on here. For example, you make a reference to Senator D'Amato. You wrote "the GOP through D'Amato began " a countdown to the 28th which was particularly ironic since he, meaning D'Amato, "bad voted against extending the statute during the RTC reauthorization period. Now, when you wrote that, you didn't actually have information, did you, that the GOP had a meeting and asked Senator DAmato to do this, did you? Mr. STEINER. No, I did not, Senator. Senator BOXER. So your statement that "GOP, through D'Amato," this was a conjecture on your part, is it not? It's something you thought might have happened? Mr. STEINER, That's correct. Senator BOXER. It wasn't meant to be accurate; is that correct, in terms of this diary? Mr. STEINER We as I said before, Senator, it was never my intention to provide a precise narrative. Senator BOXER. I understand. I bring that out because I frankly think that too much is made of this diary. Now, as I understand 359 it, you're not really backing away from the things that you saw firsthand; is that correct? In other words, you I re not backing away from things that you knew when you put them in the diary, things that people actually said to you, you're not backing away from the actual facts? Mr. STEINER. I wouldn't say that I'm backing away from anything Senator. Senator BOXER. Now, when you wrote, "Roger Altman"- The CHAIRMAN. Senator Boxer, would you just stop there. I don't know quite what that phrase means. Either the diary is basically accurate with its facts or it is not. There have been stories to the effect, that I've seen, that you say that the diary is not accurate and she's just asked you a question and you really didn't give a straight answer. Mr. STEINER. Senator, I think I've been very careful, in fact, not to comment publicly on this matter at all in anticipation of appearing here before your Committee. This is the first public comment I have made on this subject. As I said in my opening statement, I think at times my testimony will clarify what I wrote. And I would say that, yes. The CHAIRMAN. If you'll just permit me and I'll restore your time. Senator BOXER. As long as I don't lose my time. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Boxer just asked you the question as to whether the basic facts you relays here, the basic text of what you've said, allowing for some hyperbole and exaggeration, if that is accurate, and the answer should be either yes or no. Is it accurate, the basic text? Mr. STEINER. Senator, as I said, if we went through it, I'd be happy to go through it on a point by point basis and talk about where there are differences and where additional clarity would be helpful. The CHAIRMAN. I think what you're re doing, if I may say respectfully, is what Roger Altman did here on February 24. You're not giving a direct, straight answer. Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take back my time. And that is not my conclusion at all and I respect your opin ion but on my time I would like the opportunity to say that I do not agree with you here. I think what we have here is a young person who kept a diary about his time in Washington, DC. Now, when he looks back on this time 20 years from now, be doesn't want to think it was all boring. Now, some of the words in here