August 3, 1994 - Part 1
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:25:59) The concern was so great that Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes told Chief of Staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty about the difficulties with Altman's testimony the next day. Associate Counsel Neil Eggleston, one of the two White House lawyers who had attended the Senate hearings, called White House Counsel Bernie Nussbaum on vacation in Mexico to alert him to the problem. Now obviously, this thing was not only bubbling, it was boiling. 16 Did any of this ever, in any way during that period between the hearing on February 24th and the last letter on the 21st of the next month, a letter that, by the way, in no way answered the questions that were asked or in no way cleared up things in my humble opinion, did any of this ever, in this boil that was going on at the White House and the Treasury, did any of this ever bubble up to you? Secretary BENTSEN. I do not think it did. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dodd. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR DODD Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome back to the Committee let me just make one observation, at the outset, and I think it is worthy of noting, because I think it does go to some of the difficulties. Secretary BENTSEN. Let me say to you, Senator, that a lot of things happen over there that do not get to me. Senator DODD. Just one observation that I do not think needs to be made about witnesses' testimony, that I think creates, in a sense, some of the problems we face as a hearing panel. Most of the witnesses have appeared already, before a Grand Jury, have been deposed by the Office of Government Ethics in sworn testimony, have been deposed by Counsel for our Committee in sworn testimony, and some have already appeared before the Committee in sworn testimony. One of the problems that emerges in that process is that witnesses become so trapped by their own statements that the fear of perjury and the advice of counsel of showing any willingness to modify a statement in light of whatever else comes along becomes difficult. I would just make that observation as a general proposition. When a person has testified four or five or six times, I think in a sense we then limit the ability of people to recollect better or to respond to questions, I make that as just a general observation. Second, in response to Senator Gramm's question about the issue of whether or not Mr. Altman would have directed Ms. Hanson to meet with Mr. Nussbaum, or not, I appreciate your response. I think it needs to be framed in the context in which the meeting on September 29th occurred at the White House. It has, I think, been stipulated, or should be stipulated, that that meeting at the White House was to meet on the Waco matter, and that it was at the end of that meeting at which Ms. Hanson talked to Mr. Nussbaum. I think that is a different scenario than the notion of just going down specifically for the purpose, and the fact that someone, in the context of another meeting, might raise the question of their own volition. I think that takes on a different meaning. I would quickly point out that there is a memo that was then sent on the 30th, the day after, in which one could certainly read into that memo that there was some direction. So I am not clear in my own mind as to it, but there is enough of an open question. And 1 am not necessarily soliciting a response from you, but just for the purpose of the record. 17 What I would like to ask you, and I commend you for your testimony, and Senator Gramm has sort of alluded to this already in his question or comment to you and that is what ought we to do in this Committee legislatively. I am deeply concerned about the statutory requirements of how you fill the Chief Executive Officer of the Resolution Trust Corporation when a vacancy occurs.