August 3, 1994 - Part 1
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:35:22) I think the Secretary's point on that is extremely worthwhile. That jurisdiction may go to the Judiciary Committee. I would hope that someone would make some recommendations on how that might be dealt with as well. Secretary BENTSEN. Senator, that is right on the point and I had made it earlier, and you are amplifying it. That is particularly true for agencies that have some law enforcement responsibility. Senator DODD. Correct, correct. My time has expired. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Bond. Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Secretary BENTSEN. Thank you. Senator BOND. Just to follow up on a question that Senator Gramm was asking, I know it is very difficult to ask you to make decisions on the veracity of two of your top people. We do have what appears to be an irreconcilable conflict and it is a difficult task for us. But you have outlined to us today a very orderly procedure in which important matters are brought to your attention by means of a memo. 19 Would a discussion with a representative of the White House, like Mr. Nussbaum, by Counsel Jean Hanson from the Treasury or Treasury RTC, under your procedures have been recorded in a written memorandum? Would you expect that kind of information to be put in the record? Secretary BENTSEN. Not necessarily, particularly, Senator where there was nothing for me to do. There was no involvement by me. Senator BOND. Mr. Secretary, you have made it clear in your opening statement and in answers to questions that you told Mr. Altman, prior to February 25, that the judgment was his as to whether he should recuse himself, and that you were in no position to make that decision. The question we have is that Mr. Altman testified yesterday, without any hesitation, that you had recommended that he recuse himself. Secretary BENTSEN. My understanding what he testified to was that he thought I said that if I was in his position, that I would recuse myself. Frankly, I do not remember saying that. I do know that I certainly sympathized with him, and he might have interpreted it to be that. Senator BOND. Mr. Secretary, you were interviewed for the Treasury Department Inspector General's report on July 20th. Two days after you were interviewed, on July 22, the extensive search which you had directed apparently turned up documents reflecting your schedule that your office had just become aware of Those documents reflect that you had a meeting with Roger Altman and Jean Hanson on February 1, the day before the now infamous February 2 White House meeting, but the schedule also reflects that you had a meeting with Mr, Altman and Ms. Hanson on February 3rd, the day after the White House meeting. In your inter-view with the Inspector General, you recall the meeting on February 1st, and you recall discussing the statute of limitations in the Madison civil cases, but you did not recall being advised of the February 2nd meeting. There were no documents at the time reflecting that there had been a meeting two days afterwards, a meeting on February 3rd. With that information now available to you, thinking back when Roger Altman and Jean Hanson met with you on February 2, the day after Secretary BENTSEN. No, they met with me, I think, on February 1. Is that correct? Senator BOND. Well your notes from your office reflect that there was a meeting on February 3, as well. We have a copy of the redacted schedule which shows that there was a meeting on February 3. [Pause.] Pull that out. That shows that Mr. Altman and Ms. Hanson were on your schedule. Unfortunately, we are blessed with no shortage of paper work. This is the 1st, here is the 3rd.