August 2, 1994 - Part 8
August 2, 1994 - Part 8
(18:29:15)(tape #10072 begins) Senator DODD. I don't think any of our colleagues are afraid of asking embarrassing questions. Senator D'AMATO. If I could The CHAIRMAN. Let's do this Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. Chairman 467 Senator DAMATO. Fine;. Let me say this. My colleagues have been very patient. We will return to this question. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Good. Senator DAMATO. I thank them for their patience, but I'd like the question answered eventually. Senator BOXER. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. The Committee now will take a 10-minute recess and when we resume, Senator Bryan will be recognized. The Committee stands in recess. (18:29:45) [Recess.] (18:29:47) Commentary hearing hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG from tv studio, they also talk to J. WILLIAM CORDINHA (?) Majority Counsel (18:49:11) Hearing resumes: The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume. Let me invite everyone to find a seat and we'll begin with Senator Bryan of Nevada. Senator BRYAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me make an observation or two before I get into my line of questions. This is our third day. It's late in the evening, and what strikes me, in retrospect, is how avoidable all of this was. It's clear from the evidence before us that neither the President nor anyone in the White House or this Administration in any way tried to interfere with the course of the investigation or referral process that relates to the RTC. The Office of Government Ethics has opined that there was no violation of any ethical standards, and I must say what I find particularly regrettable, in my view, is in my dealings with this Administration that the Treasury Department was and is really one of the shining stars. I think its focus in terms of reexamining some of the burdens that we've placed on business, its receptiveness to new approaches, its responsiveness has been something that I've found most gratifying, So being left with this very difficult situation that we deal with this evening, I think, is particularly unfortunate. Mr. Altman, I think you were placed, as I said in my opening statement last Friday night, in an untenable position. You were asked to wear two hats, you were dancing back and forth across this line which a lot of us felt was perhaps more carefully crafted from a legislative perspective, that is to keep the RTC separate and apart from the Treasury Department. So I acknowledge that you were in a very difficult situation. I guess at this juncture we're really here to-much as a jury to ascertain what the facts are. Let me tell you some of the things that trouble me. You go back to March 23, 1993, and Mr. Roelle indicates that he talked with you and informed you about the Madison referrals. You've indicated that you have no recollection, but I must say that circumstantially I find it more than just a bit curious that on that day and the following day two articles from The New York Times are faxed to Mr. Nussbaum. Let me be clear, I don't think there is any violation in terms of sending those articles to anyone, but I do find that there is at least some probative value, some circumstantial evidence, that would tend to bear out Mr. Roelle. Then we get down to the September 29 meeting at the White House. Ms. Hanson says that you're the one that asked her to set that up and you say that you did not do so, that you do not know how she may have reached that conclusion in a colloquy with initially Senator SARBANES. and later with other Members, concede 468 that there may have been some inference that she may have drawn, but you do not really understand how she could have reached that conclusion. Then on October 6, Mr. Roelle testifies that, indeed, he was privy to a conversation that you requested Hanson to set up a meeting at the White House on the 14th of October and you indicate that you do not have a recollection of that conversation. Senator Kerry probed you on that. I must say in trying to determine who is the most credible among those who are testifying to what I understand are many, many different dates, and many conversations and fact patterns, I'm beginning to see a pattern here that's troublesome. Then we move to the question of the testimony before this Committee on the 24th and I must say, Mr. Altman, I don't think that you were very forthright on that. Then we deal with the question of recusal, and I must say that was not in my judgment one of your finest hours. So let me focus for a bit here on the recusal process, and what you yourself were thinking as you were trying to make your decision ultimately made on the 25th of February. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, may I take 30 seconds? Senator BRYAN. You may, indeed. Mr. ALTMAN. I want to try to express myself better. I don't recall the March 1993, discussion with Mr. Roelle, but it may have happened. I'm not trying to say categorically it didn't. I just don't recall it. I think the salient point is no one has suggested that I imparted improper information to anyone. Senator BRYAN. And that is not at issue. Mr. ALTMAN. But, Senator Bryan, it may have happened. Now, I don't recall the other two you asked me about. And the one thing I feel strongly about, if I bad tasked Ms. Hanson to go there I think I would have remembered it. But seriously, it [the March 1993 discussion] may have happened. I'm not trying to suggest categorically it didn't. So I just wanted to clarify that in that respect. senator BRYAN. You understand that we who are trying to reconstruct what occurred obviously have to look at the totality of circumstances. I'm trying to be very candid with you, Mr. Altman. I mean I'm looking at this is cumulative evidence that comes and trying to determine who is being more truthful. I have to tell you that those are some concerns. Let me give you a chance to talk about the recusal process. If you can give me a time frame when did you first begin to, in your own mind, entertain the possibility that, look, maybe I ought to recuse myself? I'm asking you just a rough time frame, you may not recall the exact day but give me Mr. ALTMAN. It was right around the end of January when the question was beginning to be raised about Ricki Tigert's nomination, and the recusal issues related to her,