August 2, 1994 - Part 9
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:50:59) Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator DODD. -and asked if I would support him, a Republican, I know him, Now, in whose interest is it to appoint a Republican to head up the RTC if you're worried about this? The people watching this and listening to this may not understand all of these debates between Committees but there's a backdrop here. When you have the overall demeanor, all of these other questions, set up something we ought to be cognizant of and aware of. We're trying to draw the conclusion of whether or not the Department of the Treasury, Mr. Altman in his capacity as the head of the RTC, the White House and others were trying to derail these criminal referrals and the civil suits. That's the issue we're driving at, did someone at the White House try and derail this whole operation? If you're looking at a state of mind, if you will, taking a look at the overall attitudes that are being reflected by decisions being made in the office, I don't see as a backdrop of this evidence, that kind of demeanor. Now, as to your state of mind in the February 2 meeting. I think that's important. I also think it's important to know what the state of mind was at the White House, Senator Domenici's questions. We're going to have Mr. Nussbaum here. We're going to have all the White House people here to ask them whether or not they were pressuring. You said you didn't take it as pressure. Clearly, they wear a different hat than you do in their particular setting. I'm satisfied with Your answer, that you didn't-you wish you made the decision to recuse yourself earlier. Tomorrow and the next day well hear from the White House people and that will be a legitimate question. While. 509 to insist that this witness understand what Mr. Nussbaum was thinking is a legitimate question, at some point you've got to let up on it. Its not his responsibility to know what the state of mind was of Mr. Nussbaum. I say that because I've listened to you for almost 40 hours, over the last 3 or 4 days, tantamount to what would be 10 days of hearings here. I think we need to remind ourselves of what we're driving at here, what the issue was as a result of the resolution being adopted, that caused this Committee to convene and discuss these issues. That is whether or not this White House, these high-ranking officials, did anything to derail, disrupt, to throw off the criminal and civil matters affecting the Madison Guaranty company. I'd like to get back on track with those questions, if we could , instead of going off ad nauseam, in areas where honest people can disagree what the intent was, what the intent behind the question was. I say that and let me ask one question that comes down to the whole issue that has to do with the statutory authority because at some point we're going to make, I hope, some legislative rec- ommendations as well. I think we can stipulate here that most of us agree that this idea of wearing two hats which by law either you I oil or Secretary Bentsen had to do, created a lot of the situation that we're in tonight. I wonder if you would comment as to whether or not you have any suggestions or ideas as to bow in the future we can avoid this in some other Administration so we're not meeting again to discuss what someone said at a hearing, what someone intended by a question, what someone intended by an answer, and avoid the kind of problems that, I think, this legislative Catch-22 has caused us to be in. Mr. ALTMAN. Well, Senator, our intentions were honorable in try ing to take up responsibility for the RTC and trying to make some improvements in it, and I believe that we did, But I agree with the rust of your question. I think it would be better in the future if a brighter line or some wall between the institution which is independent of another institution. I agree. I think these hearings alone demonstrate that all kinds of appearances issues raised and controversies arise that would not happen if there were a wall. Senator DODD. Who should have taken that job? How should we deal with that? Should it be some independent person that has not been confirmed by the Congress or the Senate. That was one of the requirements, that the person who took the job had to have been confirmed by the Senate