Advanced Search
Street scenes ON PREVIEW TAPE # 991875 some basic idea of these shots are: above view of street, row of palms down middle, big domed building (church or temple or something?) with a sign which says America on it vertically surburban homes
City streets
The World Series
The Minnesota Twins have the Los Angeles Dodgers seeing double as they take the first two games of the World Series. 8 - 2, 5 - 1. The highlight of the first game is the fateful third inning when the Twins need a traffic cop on the base paths as they score six runs. The Dodgers were never the same after that. Wide shot - Metropolitan Stadium filled with baseball fans and Vice President Hubert Humphrey is throws out the first baseball. MS - Mudcat Grant of the Dodgers pitches the ball, Ron Fairly swings and hits a homerun. MS - Dodger, Don Drysdale pitches the ball and Don Mincher hits and scores a home run. MS - Twins, Frank Quilici swings and brings it home for a homerun - off of Don Drysdale. MS - Zoilo Versalles swings and scores a three run homer putting the Twins out in front 4 to 1. MS - Baseball fans in the stands. MS - Earl Battey at home plate, he swings and they take it home for another home run plus 2 more runs for the Twins by Valdespino and Killebrew. MS - Don Drysdale pitches the ball and Frank Quilici swings and Mincher runs in and scores - ouch!. CU - A very enthusiastic Minnesota baseball fan really applauding. Twins 8 LA Dodgers 2.. Twins win this game
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:25:45) Thank you very much, Ms. Hanson. I see that my time has expired. The CHAiRmAN. Thank you, Senator Sasser. Senator Gramm. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR PHIL GRAMM Senator GRAmm. Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to begin now, but we're getting ready for the second bell on a floor vote. Should I .wait until we get back? The CHAIRMAN. We'll give you your full shot of time. Senator Boxer is going across to vote and coming back. If we have to interrupt the hearing, she can resume it until I can vote and come back. I think you should start and we'll protect your time. If you feel hurried, we'll give you the time you need. Senator GRAmm. Ms. Hanson, thank you very much for appearing before the Committee. I want to go back and be sure, before I get to the questions, that I understand exactly what the facts are. Mr. Roelle, who is a career employee of the FDIC, who was, until recently, on assignment to the RTC, called you-you are not an RTC employee, but you work for the Treasury Department-he called you to give you a message about criminal referrals. I want to be sure that I've got it right. Was the message that there were criminal referrals and that they might be leaked to the press, or was the message that there are criminal referrals that might be leaked to the press and that there are nine of them? In other words, was the purpose of the communication to tell you that the referrals were coming and they might be leaked to the press, or was the purpose of the communication to tell you about the criminal referrals and, as an afterthought, an amendment, or an addendum, a mention that they might be leaked to the press? Ms. HANSON. It was my understanding that the reason I was receiving this information was at the request of Mr. Altman, and I understood the reason for the call was because this information was going to leak to the press. There was a policy that Mr. Altman be made aware of information involving people of prominence or companies, national companies, if the information was going to ap- pear in the press. So, it was perfectly consistent, to my mind, the policy that the RTC was using in terms of giving information 123 to Mr. Altman, Otherwise, I don't know why Mr. Altman would 'have gotten this information. Senator GRAmm. Was this the first time this had happened or had it happened before? Ms. HANSON. The first time? Senator GRAmm. That you had been notified, as a conduit to Mr. Altman, that an investigation was going to leak to the press. Was this the first one ever, or had there been similar communications about major companies, as you mentioned, or about other individuals? Ms. HANsON. From time to time, I spoke-I spoke with Mr. Roelle over a period of months, from time to time, and on a number of occasions I was given information that Mr. Roelle indicated would likely leak, or would leak. I served, from time to time, as a conduit for information to Mr. Altman,, because be just didn't, physically, have enough hours in his day to speak with all of the people that he needed to talk to. Senator GRAmm. In notifying you of this, they were notifying you, obviously, as their way of notifying Mr. Altman? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator GRAmm. Did Mr. Roelle tell you why he believed that this would be leaked to the press? Ms. HANSON. No, be didn't, but as I stated, the RTC leaked a lot and so I believed him. Senator GRAmm. Was this referral coming to the RTC or to the Justice Department? Ms. HANSON, As I understood it, it was being transmitted from the Kansas City RTC office to the Washington RTC office, and from the Washington RTC office it would 90 to the Department of Justice. Senator GRAmm. We have our second bells for the vote on the Senate floor, and, Mr. Chairman, if it's OK with you, I'd like to stop so that we might vote. The CHAIRMAN. Then we'll recess at this point and reserve the remainder of Senator Gramm's time, and what I'm going to do, Senator Gramm, if Senator Boxer comes back and another Senator is ready, have her start with that person, and as soon as that person finishes, we'll go back to you. The Committee stands in recess pending the return of Senator Boxer. (18:30:23) [Recess.] (18:30:25) Commentary of hearings hosts NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE from tv studio, they also interview MICHAEL ROSS of the Los Angeles Times and Senator CHRISTOPHER DODD
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:40:04) Hearing resumes: Senator BOXER. We'll come back to order. When Senator Riegle comes in, be will take the Chair. In the meantime-what well do IS continue, and when Senator Gramm comes in, we'll go back to 'his time. If there's no objection, I can take my 7 minutes at this time. When Senator Gramm comes back, we'll go right back to him. Ms. Hanson, I want to talk to you about this who le issue of press leaks. I want to start off where my colleague, Senator Bennett, was going with his questions because I'm trying to understand all of this and I really don't understand it. You seemed very proud that You had, in fact, briefed Mr. Nussbaum before the press leaks actually occurred. You said I was right. lit. Am I correct in the way I'm Ms. HANSON. I think what I did was appropriate, absolutely. 124 Senator BoxER. You think it's correct. Is it in your job description to head off press leaks, to advise people at the White House that there are going to be press leaks? Is this something that you, you ever discussed, that your job was supposed to include that? Ms. HANsON. I never discussed it specifically, to my recollection Senator BOXER. Yet you said it was for a governmental purpose Could you elaborate on that? How is advising the White House a press-what you fear is going to be leaked to the press, how that really benefit our country, our Nation? Ms. HANsoN. To the extent that the White House or the President dent-because the President could be asked a question-to the tent that he is asked a question that mischaracterizes the info tion, or otherwise would put the Presidency, the President, the office of the Presidency, the Administration, and the whole Go ment in a bad light, it is important that the person to whom inquiry is going to come has the information in order to pre deal with the inquiries as they come. Senator BoXER. If I just might say to you, and I really you and believe that you function from goodwill and good purpose that if all we were worried about was what's going to put us in a' bad light, nothing would ever get done. I venture to say, it's my feeling that with everybody's ' heightened concern about all this, I don't think it really served anyone very well because I agree with Senator Bennett. If there's a press leak, a question, and it has to do with something that happened 12 years ago, and there's a private attorney that's been hired to handle that situation, why not give the advice to those who would be concerned about it as follows'? In other words, have the RTC press office just inform the White House press office that these questions were coming, and they have to do with something that happened a long time ago, and your advice is to refer it all to private counsel. Ms. HANsON. It's not my understanding that there was private counsel hired at that time, but the White House also had a policy in place that, to the extent that information was going to be discussed with White House officials that related to ongoing investigations, the contact point was Counsel to the President. So, according to the White House guidance, as I understood it, as it existed at that time and as I believe it still exists, the White House Counsel was the appropriate contact point Senator BOXER. But you didn't work with the White House. Let me talk to you about Mr. Altman's testimony because it's troubling to me that you sat behind him and there were questions by my colleagues--Senator Gramm, Senator Bond, and I may be reiterating what my Chairman said-- but it seemed to me that when you were testifying before a Senate Committee or a House Committee, and questions were asked, you bad an obligation to respond in full, not to give a tortured or incomplete answer. Now, you were there, and in your mind, you made a mental note, "We've got to go back." What does that mean, "We've got to go back"? How many days were you going to take? You knew that you bad informed Mr. Nussbaum about the referrals. Is that correct? You sat there knowing that, Ms. HANsON. As I stated, at that time, as I sat there, I realized that I had not thought-we had not prepared Mr. Altman. The en 125 tire preparation focus was on the civil investigation that was underway at that time, the statute of limitations issue, the Vacancy Act issue, as it related to Mr. Altman. Senator BOXER. I'm going to interrupt you here, if I might, for just a minute, because I think that is a tortured answer. When Senator Gramm asked his question, he didn't make a distinction. He just asked Mr. Altman if he, or any member of his staff, had discussed anything to do with Whitewater, but, yet in your mind, you only heard civil investigation. I don't understand how a reasonable person would interpret the question in that fashion.
Berlin Escape: Easterner Scales Cemetery Wall
Here is a social document of our times. At a cemetery on the East-West Berlin border, friends of an East Berliner raise a ladder from the West. He dashes to the ladder, then up and over to freedom. He has a fiancee in the West, proving that love laughs at locksmiths and border guards. High Angle shot - Cemetery in East Germany. CUS - Barbwire fence, a tomb stone and cross. MS - Guard walking with his attack trained dog. High Angle shot - In West-Germany a truck is backed up to wall and in the bed of the truck there are 3 to 4 men. High Angle shot - They pull a ladder from the back of the truck and hang it over the wall and over the barbwire, the signal is given. High Angle shot - Man is climbing up one ladder, and on to the another ladder that is laid on top of the ladder that's on the other side of the wall, he makes it over the wall and falls on to the bed of the truck. MS - Guards running towards the ladder where the escape took place. High Angle shot - truck pulls away and the man is free.
Army 10 Boston College 0
West Point takes on Boston at the Military Academy and after a scoreless first half the Kaydets get the breaks. A recovered fumble leads to an Army field goal and a miscued punt by B C gives Army the ball on the thirty yard line and they score again. LS - Football fanciers attending the Army vs. Boston football game at West Point, stadium. High Angle shot - Spectators in the stands. MS - Army facing Boston College, Boston's Brendon McCarthy fumbles and Army recovers the ball. MS - Army kicks and scores a 3-point field goal. MS - Boston punts and barely makes it to the 30-yard line. Big break for Army. MS - Army's quarterback throws the football and it is caught by the receiver and taken in for a touchdown. Army wins the game. 10 to 0.
Texas 27 Indiana 12
The Number One rated Texas Longhorns have a fight of it before they can push Indiana into a corner and win. It is not until the end of the first half that Texas gets a comfortable lead. And Indiana throws a few scares into them in the second half before Texas winds up on top at the final whistle. High Angle shot - Looking down at the football field the Indiana marching band formed a big I. LS - It's raining and the football fans in the stands with their umbrellas open. High Angle shot - The Texas Longhorns facing Indiana, the play comes into action and there is a lateral play where only a few yards are gained. MS - Another play goes into action and the ball is run in for another Texas touchdown. MS - The ball goes into play again and there's a pile up of players at the goal line. MS - Football fans holding up umbrellas, the rain has been coming down continually during the game. High Angle Medium shot - Indiana has the ball in the second half of the game, the ball was passed and it was a 12 yard gain. MS - The ball is passed and it is caught and it is a 62 yard Indiana touchdown. High Angle Medium shot - Texas has the ball and it is passed and he snakes his way up the middle for 43 yards. High Angle Medium shot - The quarterback throws the final touchdown pass to keep Texas on top of the national heap.
The Patient Is Fine: President Makes Quick Recovery
The Bethesda Naval Hospital is housing its most famous patient. President Johnson was operated on there, successfully, for the removal of his gall bladder. Five hours after the operation he took a few steps and attending physicians marveled at his rapid recovery. The operation didn't slow the President's Administrative capacity in the least. He kept in touch with Vice President Humphrey and Congressional leaders and signed a dozen bills into law. Several exterior shots of the hospital. Sign, "National Naval Medical Center. MS - Camera pans the exterior of the hospital. Interior, LBJ looking somewhat unhappy, reclining in chair, with family members around him (all posing for the camera) Lady Bird and the President's two daughters Lucy Baines and Lynda Bird. MS - The President in his reclining chair again, this time with Hubert Humphrey. LBJ hands papers to Humphrey, signs something, chats with his VP.
The Fashion Parade
With Paris and other pleasure spots just around the corner from your hometown, the question of what to wear that takes the least care is one that is easily answered these days. Permanent press fabrics are the answer. Blouses and skirts for the ladies and men's drip and wear shirts and slacks. (textile technology) The models disembarking from a TWA Passenger flight. Exterior shot - Modern Art Museum in Paris, France. MS - Very pretty shot of the Eiffel Tower. CU - Models hands - washing a Wash n' Wear blouse in the hotel room bathroom sink. High Angle shot - Two young men walking on the terrace. CU - Two young ladies one in a suit and the other wearing a skirt and blouse. men walk up and shake hands with the young ladies. CU - Man wearing a shirt and pants of a cotton blend outfit. CUS - Material of the floral print suit the model is wearing. Man's short selves shit and of course it is a cotton blend making it Wash n' Wear. The four models walk off together.
Notre Dame 17 Army 0
After 19 years, Notre Dame and Army renew their rivalry in New York and the Subway Alumni are out in full force to see a heavily favored Irish team take the measures of Army 17 to 0. The marching bands are on the football field. High Angle shot - The Army Cadets applauding in the stands. MS - Notre Dame and Army face off on the field. High Angle shot - Notre Dame Quarterback throws and hits his man and he takes the ball to the 30 yard line. Notre Dame throws to his receiver and scores a touchdown. High Angle shot - Army passes the ball and it is deflected and intercepted by Notre Dame. MS - Ball is passed and it is taken for 4 yards by Notre Dame. MS - Notre Dame takes the ball and scores another touchdown. Notre Dame wins!
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:45:32) Ms. HANSON. Senator Boxer, I take my responsibilities and my obligations very seriously. If I had been able to make those answers perfect, I would have done that. That was not possible. Senator BOXER. But you, wanted Ms. HANSON. May I finish? Senator BOXER. You wanted to make them perfect at a later date- MS. HANSON. May I finish, please. Senator BOXER. My time is running out so Ms. HANSON. This is very important to me, Senator BOXER. Go ahead. Ms. HANSON, I'm testifying here under oath, and I would like the opportunity to finish, if I might. Senator ~OXER. Go ahead. Go ahead, please. Ms. HANSON. It is not possible, as one sits and listens to 41/2 hours of testimony and hears the words, to respond to every issue. It's essential to have a transcript to look it over. As I stated, there were a number of things-in fact, I believed that Mr. Altman bad testified to the follow-up meeting that ' took place on February 3, 1994. 1 believed it. As I left the nearing, I believed I bad beard it. I believed he had testified to it. I searched the transcript after I got it, and read it over and over. I never found it because, in fact, was mistaken. In order to make sure that the testimony is correct, it's important and essential to read the testimony. We have here now-everyone has gone over and pored over two questions and answers, and that's appropriate, but at the time it happened, I was listening and the questions were being asked and the answers were being given, it wasn't possible to focus on the answer to every question. And , if I just might add Senator BOXER. Ms. Hanson, I'm not talking to you about every question. I'm speaking, specifically, about the question that Senator Gramm asked, and I don't doubt that you believe you've been right all through this. I'm trying to give you the perspective of a reasonable person. I'm not an attorney, so when someone says, Have you, or any member of your staff, discussed this issue with the White House, I don't expect you're going to say' "Well ' I'll only answer it regarding a problem with a civil matter." I'm just trying to suggest to you that it was very important. When you prepared Mr. Altman's testimony for Congress, I note that on it, you did not, in fact, write down that you had discussed this with Mr. Nussbaum and that you had follow-up meetings with him. That would be my last question. Why didn't you prepare him for that? 126 Ms. HANSON. There had not been an oversight board hearing for a year. During that period of time the Secretary had promised that the RTC would engage in-would adopt nine reforms. There was a tremendous amount of RTC work that had gone on during that period of time, including whstleblower hearings and follow-up, the civil investigation, and the extension of the statute of limitations did our absolute one was not an There was a massive quantity of information. We best to try to anticipate every question, and that ticipated. Senator BOXER. So, you didn't brief him, in writing, to this question and, then, when it occurred, you thought you'd fix it up later. Is that a fair summary? Ms. HANSON. As I said, I had no-Mr. Altman, I understood Senator BOXER. Is that a fair summary? Ms. HANSON. -was testifying to his recollection. Senator BOXER. Is what I just stated a fair summary? You didn't think it was important enough to include in the written preparation and, when he didn't discuss it when asked by Senator Gramm, you thought you'd fix up the record later on that point. Ms. HANSON. I disagree with everything that you've just said. Senator BOXER. That's not correct. I will withhold, because I'm missing a point here, and I will come back later. Senator Gramm. Senator DAMATO. Senator Boxer, if I might, I'd just like to make an observation. That is, Ms. Hanson, notwithstanding that this was an RTC oversight hearing, it was very clear that the Republicans were interested as it related to Whitewater and only as it related to Whitewater * They weren't interested in the reforms. Let's be candid. So, I find it difficult to understand how there was this mass of documentation when we were interested-and, indeed, you knew what we were interested in and were prepared for our interest in the question of contacts with the White House. I told that to Mr. Altman the night before on the telephone. I yield to Senator Gramm.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:50:40) Ms. HANSON. Sir, Mr. Altman didn't give me that information. If he had Senator DAMATO. That's what shows it's even more incredible and incredulous. The night before I told him-he called me and I said, "We're going to ask you about contacts with the White House. I want you to know that." Senator Gramm. Senator GRAmm. Ms. Hanson, let me go back and verify that I've heard you correctly. When you had this meeting on February 2, 1994, as I heard your testimony, the first thing that Mr. Altman talked about at the meeting was whether he should recuse himself or not. Right? Ms. HANSON. At the meeting on February 2, 1994, Mr. Altman first talked about the statute of limitations. . Senator GRAmm. Then he talked about the recusal? Ms. HANSON. Yes, sir, be went through the talking points. Senator GRAMm. When Mr. Altman testified, he had before him, as I understand it, this outline of potential questions which you helped put together. The first thing on the outline-it'starts out on the question of recusal, then it talks about RTC-Treasury contacts, 127 about Fiske, about Madison history, criminal referrals, the Madi- son investigation, the extension of the statute of limitations, and prior regulatory history on Madison Guaranty's collapse. In fact, it is 54 pages, largely about Whitewater and Madison, which is, obviously what the whole hearing was about. We all know it, and, obviously, you knew it because you prepared this information. Ms. HANSON. I didn't prepare that information, sir. It was prepared by the RTC. Senator GRAmm. OF, You have seen it though. Is that right? Ms. HANSON. I don't have a copy of it. Senator GRAmm. Mr. Chairman let me, if I may, get somebody to take this over to her to see if, in fact, she has seen it. The CHAIRMAN. If you could band it to her, please. Just glance at it and see if that's something you've seen before. Senator Gramm. Is that, in fact, what Mr. Altman bad in front of him when he was testifying? It's my understanding that's the case. If it's not Ms. HANsON. Sir, there were many drafts of this. I think that this is the last one, but I can't be certain just looking at it. Senator GRAMm. It is a draft, if it's not the-tbis is the one that was given to us, as I understand it, as what he bad before him. Now, you were present when the recusal discussion occurred on February 2, 1994. The first item he had on his briefing paper for the hearing , that he was going to use on this issue, if he were asked-any, obviously, he was asked-was the recusal question. When Mr. Altman was asked, first by me and then by others, about White House contacts, asked not on one occasion but on three " separate occasions, be said that there was one-he said there was one , substantive" contact. Then, Senator Domenici asked, "Now, you re not suggesting that you had more than one contact or your office had more than one contact, are you?" Mr. Altman said, "No." Then, Mr. Altman said, "I'm just saying if I run into someone in the hall, if you see that something is in the paper this morning, I'm not including that." You were sitting behind him. You heard him say this. You knew that was not correct, and you knew that Mr. Altman knew that was not correct. Is that not right? Ms. HANSON. In terms of-as I stated, I thought that he had testified on the February 3, 1994, follow-up meeting, Senator GRAmm. In the record of the hearing, I asked him-in fact, you read my question. He answered my question by saying that tie had one substantive contact, or that there had been one substantive contact between his staff, or himself, and any of the people listed in the question asked. Then, when Senator Domenici followed that up and said, in essence, "You keep using this term I substantive'. Are you implying that there was more than one contact?" Mr. Altman said, "No." He said, "No, I'm just saying that if ou run into somebody in the hallway." You were sitting behind him. You knew that was not correct. Is that not -right?
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:55:38) Ms. HANSON. Sir, if I understand your question correctly, I understood Mr. Altman, at that point, to be answering in terms of his own contacts. I understand, Senator, going back and looking carefully at the transcript and looking at your. question, your question is sufficiently broad that it would require inclusion of all contacts, 128 whether they were substantive or involved matters that were trivial. I believed, at that point, that Mr. Altman was testifying to the best of his knowledge. As I have stated, on the fall contacts, when the question was asked by Senator Bond, I realized that we had not-there had been no preparation on that. I did not know what his recollection was. I had a very unclear recollection myself, because I hadn't thought seriously about the fall events for many months. It was not in my view, at that point, an appropriate time to try to deal with that in the middle of the hearing. It required getting the transcript and going through the transcript, carefully, to make sure that, in reading a question like the one you posed, he had actual] answered the question, because, as I say, your question was much broader than what he was prepared to respond to. I understood that he was responding to your questions in terms of his own contacts. Senator GRAMM. I'm going to come back to that. Mr. Altman then says, on three occasions, that the only subject matter he had discussed had to do with the statute of limitations. You have already testified that you knew that was not correct, because you were at the meeting on February 2, 1994. Right? You knew that the recusal issue had been discussed. Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator GRAMM. You said that. you did not pass him a note or try to correct his testimony, because you knew that he would have an opportunity to correct it later, Is that not right? Ms. HANSON. I didn't correct him, at that point, because the opportunity bad passed. I didn't know, at that point, why be had not included the recusal discussion. It could have been for any number of reasons. He might have just forgotten it.. There were, as I say, the questions and answers that were prepared to serve as a guide. His draft answer in the prepared questions and answers, that were in the briefing book he had at the hearing, included the recusal discussion. I didn't know why it hadn't been included, and I intended that it would be discussed. Senator GRAMM, Mr. Altman was asked this not once, of course, but on several occasions in that hearing. Then, when you wrotewhen the letter was written, his first letter where he begins a clarification process, never in that letter does he mention the recusal issue. You read that first letter. Right? Ms. HANSON. This is on March 2, 1994? Senator GRAMM. This is the March 2, 1994, letter, yes. Ms. HANsON. Sir, at that point, to my recollection, I still didn't have a transcript, and I still hadn't had an opportunity to review the transcript. As I previously testified, that letter was written for a very specific reason, and to give very specific information. It was not intended to be a complete supplementation of the record. It required reading the transcript in order to do that because, if it had included one piece of information and then the transcript was reviewed and it was determined that there were six other pieces of information, some of which might have even been more important, he might then have been faulted for why he hadn't included that information in the original letter. Senator GRAMM. Ms. Hanson, if I may go back to it, you've already said that you knew, in fact, that you wondered, as I recall, 129 why he didn't mention recusal. Now, he didn't mention it. He had several occasions to mention it, and then on March 2, 1994, he writes us a letter to start clarifying. You read that letter before it was sent to US. Right? Ms. HANSON. I did. Senator GRAMM. Did you say to him, "You were asked the question about subject matter. You answered it three times without mentioning recusal, which was the first item on the notes you had in front of you, and maybe you ought to mention it now that you're writing a letter to clarify"? Did it strike you that maybe this was an opportunity to tell the Committee about the recusal issue?
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:00:46) Ms. HANSoN. Actually, sir, it didn't. That letter was written for a specific purpose, to let the Committee know that there was going to be a newspaper article, that appeared the following day, that talked about the two fall contacts. That's why the letter was written. It was not written with any intention of clarifying or supplementing the record completely. It required looking at the transcript and doing Senator GRAMM, You're saying be would not have written this letter had the article not been coming out the next day that contradicted his testimony? Ms. HANsON. I have testified that what we expected to happen was to get a cop copy of the transcript, review that copy of the transcript, and supplement it as was necessary. We were waiting for written questions. We bad been told that we would receive many written questions, and we intended that to be completed in an orderly, thorough, professional process. Senator GRAMM. Didn't you review the videotape the next day? Ms. HANSON. I did not. The CHAMMAN. Did Mr. Foreman say that she had? Senator GRAmm. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Apparently, there is-someone had indicated that their belief was that you had viewed it, but your testimony here, today, is you did not view the videotape after the hearing? Ms. HANsON. No. It's my recollection that Mr. Foreman taped that video--made that videotape over the weekend, because the hearing was played on Saturday night, and I believe be's just mistaken. I was doing other things on the day after that Friday, and Wouldn't have had 41/2 hours to watch it. The CHAMMAN. Did you then see it at some later time? MS. HANSON, I did not. Senator GRAMM. Let me go back to my point, I think what we're all trying to get at here is, you, in essence, have said that you knew during Mr. Altman's testimony, that there had been more than one meeting You knew there had been more than one subject that had been discussed. You knew that with certainty, but it didn 't matter because you were going to have an opportunity-Mr. Altman was going to have an opportunity to go back and clarify it. Mr. Altman had an opportunity to clarify in the letter he wrote and did not. He had an opportunity on March 3, 1994, in another letter he wrote, but didn't clarify, and he bad another opportunity in another letter he wrote on March 11, 1994. At what point are you accountable for what you, say? Do we take this position that, come before the Committee, say anything you want to say 130 something that is verifiably false and, then, you can send the committee three letters without ever going back and saying, " wrong"? If, at some point in the future, you come back and, a clarify the record, then is it all well and good? Can you say when you were asked the question and provided answers that were wrong on the two points you made, first, that there bad been only,,,; one substantive contact and, again, repeated in a follow-up ques- tion from Senator Domenici. that there had been only one contact? We now know there may have been 20 or 40 contacts. Second, Mr. Altman volunteered, himself, that there had only been one subject matter discussed, and he didn't mention recusal at all. Are you really saying that none of that mattered, three letters, a clear and reiterated testimony, because you could still later send another let.' ter to strike it all out? Ms. HANsON. Sir, thats not what I've said. That's not at all what I've said. What I've said, is that it required getting the testimony and looking at it. Before I had the opportunity to look at the testimony, Grand Jury subpoenas were served. I never had the opportunity to complete the process and review the transcript. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm, I'm going to give you the time you need, although the time has expired and I should rotate now, but Senator GRAMM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN, -you're not going to be foreclosed from further RTC questions if you have them. Senator GRAMM. I have here-and correct me if I'm wrong-and this is the testimony-that the White House had the testimony on March 1, 1994. Maybe you ought to pass this up as well. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm, what I've got to do, because the time has run well over, I think, is rotate and then come back to your side. Senator Kerry.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:05:19) Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanson, I think you should know that the concerns expressed by the Senator from Texas are shared by all the Members of the Committee, and I think that there is a very deep concern here about-particularly in light of Senator D'Amato's statement about a conversation the night before-about the candor of that statement. We're, obviously, going to pursue that further. I'd like to go to another area that I think is as central as the area that the Senator from Texas was asking about. I notice, from your curricula, that you've bad a significant amount of legal experience and a terrific career, ranging from work in probation and as a legal defender and in a private law firm, a distinguished private law firm. But you've never served as a regulatory lawyer or as a lawyer responsible for regulatory oversight. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. No, sir, I have not. Senator KERRY. It strikes me that there is, in this series of events, perhaps confusion that inadvertently overtook you and the Treasury Department with respect to which bat you were wearing, at what point in time, whether you were representing Mr. Altman as Counsel to the Treasury or whether you were representing him as he played out his role for the RTC. It troubles me greatly-let 131 me ask you, were you aware that the criminal referrals were confidential? Ms. HANSON. Yes, sir, and I believe I acted in accordance with the confidentiality requirements. Senator KERRY. You knew the RTC had a procedure with respect to keeping it confidential, other than the possibility of leaks? I mean, the procedure of the RTC was to maintain confidentiality because, after all, they are merely referrals to the Justice Department, and any name in them could indeed wind up in somebody's reputation being injured, so confidentiality is critical. Ms. HANSON. Yes. Senator FERRY. You only learned about that in your capacity of the RTC hat. Is that not accurate? Ms. HANSON. I learned about it in my capacity as the General Counsel of the Treasury. Mr. Altman asked Senator KERRY. Would the General Counsel of the Treasury normally be told about RTC procedures of criminal referrals? Ms. HANSON. Mr. Altman asked Senator KERRY. Would you answer my question? Would they normally Ms. HANSON. No, they would not. Senator KERRY. Was this the first criminal referral you were ever told about? MS. HANSON. I knew about other criminal referrals, none involving insolvent thrifts. Others, involving personnel action. Senator KERRY. Did you receive telephone calls from the RTC notifying you of other criminal referrals? Ms. HANSON, Not to my recollection. Senator FERRY. This is the only one the RTC notified you about? Ms. HANsON. As it relates to insolvent thrifts, yes, sir. Senator KERRY. Did you never sense, as a lawyer, a responsibility that you had gained information only in your regulatory capacity, but you were, in fact, imparting it to people who, in one form or another, fell under that regulatory capacity? Ms. HANSON. Sir, it's my understanding that the RTC is not a regulator. The RTC, in the capacity in which it was acting Senator KERRY. It has the power of subpoena-----Ms. HANSON. It does have the power of subpoena. Senator KERRY. The power of bringing criminal referrals, the power of bringing civil suits, and you don't call it a regulator? ~ Ms. HANSON. It's not my understanding that it is a regulator, sir. It does have those powers, you're absolutely right, but I-my complication of that information was solely or a governmental purpose, and the Office of Government Ethics has so concluded itself. Senator KERRY. I'm not sure I agree with their assessments, I Might add to you. I've read it very closely, and the assessment of the memo that went to Mr. Altman talks about legal requirement, and is based strictly on a legal finding. But ethics, conflict of intresst and propriety hang on appearances that go well beyond legal requirements. That is, undoubtedly, what brought you, Secretary of the ~ Treasury Bentsen, Ms. Kulka, and Mr. Ryan all to conclude that Mr. Altman ought to recuse himself, is it not? HANSON. No, sir. 132 Senator KERRY. You didn't think there was potential conflict here beyond legal? Ms. HANSON. Mr. Altman was given a written opinion ultimately, oral initially, and then written opinion, by the ethics officers, stat- ing that his recusal was not mandated by ethics, law, or regulation. If I just might finish, sir, and it went on to say that the appearance issue has to be decided -the standard for determining whether there's an improper appearance is decided on the basis of a rea- sonable person in possession of all the facts and circumstances,
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:10:53) Senator KERRY. I understand Ms. HANSON. -and that was Mr. Altman's judgment to make, whether or not he could act impartially. My recommendation was based on my view that there was going to be such public clamor and political criticism, that he couldn't-that the appearance was that he couldn't be impartial Senator KERRY. But that is Ms. HANSON. -not that he, in fact, couldn't be impartial. Senator KERRY. I understand that, but that is exactly at the cen. ter of the kind of choice you make in a recusal. I mean, you're a la lawyer. You understand that appearance of a conflict is as essential to tie choice as the actual conflict. Ms. HANSON. Again, from the ethics point of view Senator KERRY. Don't you? Do you understand that? Ms. HANSON. That the appearance is as central as the conflict? Senator KERRY. Yes. Ms. HANSON. Yes, but in making that assessment, under the ethics rules, the standard is a reasonable person in possession of all the facts. Senator KERRY. As reasonable a person as you were, as reasonable a person as Secretary Bentsen was, as reasonable a person as Ms. Kulka was, and as reasonable a person as Mr. Ryan was, everyone thought there should be a recusal. I don't have enough time here, unfortunately, to pursue this, but I want to come back to something else that strikes me as really central. I wish we had a little more time to develop this, but on September 27, 1993, you told Mr. Altman what you had heard from Mr. Roelle, and on September 29, 1993, you saw Mr, Nussbaum, and talked about press leaks. On September 30, 1993, there was the Early Bird copy that came around. On October 6, 1993, there was a call from Mr. Roelle about Sue Schmidt. Then, you called the White House and talked to Cliff Sloan. That was the third notice the White House received. On October 11 or 12, 1993, there was a call to the Altman office, Jack DeVore was there talking about The New York Times. Then, there was a subsequent meeting October 14, 1993, and there was a White House meeting, and there was another White House meeting. It just strikes me that there's an incredible amount of scurrying around for a very simple thing. If, as you have said, this was confidential, it was not to be put out in any way, then it strikes me that, much as Mr. Bennett has said, it's very simple. I mean, you don't comment on these things. There's nothing to talk about, and you certainly don't sit down for meetings with Chiefs of Staff of various players and other people to discuss "even procedure," not substance, as you put it. 133 If, indeed, that procedure is a decision that belongs within the agency, the RTC, not even fundamentally, but broadly speaking given the conflict potential within Treasury, it strikes me there's an awful lot of meetings here for people to deal with the press when the whole thing is supposed to be confidential. Ms. HANsON. Sir, I only know of two meetings. Senator KERRY. You were meeting, on many occasions, within ou met, as I say, with Mr. DeVore, with the Secretary. Correct? you, made telephone calls. I mean, the whole purpose of this, I thought, was to understand bow to deal with press inquiries. Is that correct? Ms. HANsON. The whole purpose of it was to put people on notice so that they could intelligently deal with press inquiries. Senator KERRY. I notice they got a lot of notices. The only answer for those in the White House is, "This is under the RTC. it's inap propriate for us to know-we can't know anything about it. We 't know anything about it, and that's it." I 'don't understand why the people who are supposedly the subject, conceivably, of a decision the RTC made, are learning about the statute of limitations choices in front of the decisionmaker. Ms. HANsON. Are you talking about the February 2, 1994, meetin 9 Senator KERRY. That happened at the February 2, 1994, meeting. That's correct, It also happened-yes, at the February 2, 1994, meeting. Ms. HANsON. The February 2, 1994, meeting, sir, was entirely procedural.
Here He Comes, There He goes
The fastest man on wheels sets a new world's record. Donald Campbell sends his "Bluebird" over the sands of Lake Eyre in Australia at a speed of 403 mph. This is 360 mph faster than the speed record once held by his late father, Sir Malcolm Campbell. Mechanics fine tuning the car, the motor and the wheels and what ever else needs to be checked out. MS - Donald Campbell readies his Blue Bird. MS - A tractor like machine is smothing out the surface so when the Blue Bird is speeding down the sands it will be easier to keep the car in control. MCUS - Donald Campbell sitting in the cock pit of the car. MS - The Back end of the car, he starts up the engion and he starts driving the Blue Bird. That's one big car and its very plane like. MLS - On the first pass the car is traveling 400 MPH. CUS - Camera man folling the car going down the track.
US Track Triumph: Swamp Russia With Record Score
The United States is host to athletes from the soviet Union as the two countries meet at Track and Field for their sixth annual sports spectacle. In this short period the games have taken on all of the glamour of the Olympics and 55,000 spectators see the U.S. win by a record score: 187 to 156. Among the thrilling events are two world records: In the pole vault Fred Hansen goes 17 feet, 4 inches to better his old mark; in the shot put Dallas Long comes through with four prodigious tosses and sets a new world record, a fantastic 67 feet, 10 inches. Over all view shot of Dodger Stadium where people are starting to fill up the seats. Sports applauding. Women's 100 meter dash. People with hats and sun glasses on. Men's 100 meter dash. 110 high hurdles, men and it turns out US first and second place. Fred Hansen goes over the pole and smashes his own record. Shot Putter, throws and breaks a record. Sport fans applauding. High jumper. 1500 meter run. The US wins the race.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:15:23) Senator KERRY. I understand that. My question to you, was it appropriate? What, in your mind, strikes you as appropriate in the various parties that were present discussing that particular issue at that moment in time? That's what I'm having difficulty with. Maybe you can tell me. Ms. HANSON. If you recall, duriin~ that period of time, Senator D'Amato and I believe eight other congressmen had written a letter to Janet Reno, the Attorney General, with a copy to Mr. Altman ' relating to the statute of limitations with respect to Madison Guaranty, on the criminal side and on the civil side and pointing out that the civil statute of limitations bad been extended for a period of 5 years but was going to expire soon. Over a period of several weeks, those latter weeks in January, there were increasing there was increasing interest, press attention, and congressional interest in what the statute of limitations was, when it expired. As Senator D'Amato said-I heard him earlier today-there was some discussion as to whether it expired in August, and why this had all become an issue. It was not clear to anyone, other than someone who sat down and studied it, why it was that this had, all of a sudden, become an issue and was-there was such a sense Of urgency about it. It was misunderstood. It was misunderstood by most people who were involved in the process. The sole reason for talking with the White House people about the statute of limitations issue was to make sure that they understood it, that there were going to be decisions that were going to have to be made. There were going to be actions taken, in a relatively brief period Of time, that were going to have repercussions. 134 Senator KERRY. My time is up. I don't want to abuse the time again. I would just say to you, that the kind of meeting that took place ace still strikes me as somewhat excessive and even strange. There are ways to communicate that information that would not raise the kind of questions we are now here trying to answer. I think, in terms of antenna-the antenna on this was either not up or very finely tuned or we wouldn't be here. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Kerry. I think, for the record, I should just include one item that we touched on a moment ago, and that's on viewing the videotape of the hearing after the hearing. I our deposition, Ms. Hanson, you were asked the ques- tion, was there ever a time you remember sitting with Mr. Fore- man with a videocassette recorder playing a videotape of the C- you Span hearings of the record," to which you, answered, "It was immediately after the conversation with Mr. Altman that I've just recounted." That was over on another page but it indicates that happened early the following week after the hearing This is what Mr. Foreman said. He was as asked the question as well, and he said: I believe that some of the hearings. were replayed that night and I made a tape of it. I think it was that Thursday night. I think I watched some portions of it. I replayed it the next morning, in the Ace, and Ms. Hanson was particularly focused on Senator Bond's questions. In response to your question, sometime Friday morning. I guess I either heard from her what the question and answer was or perhaps saw it on the tape sometime Friday. I don't want to get hung up on this, but I think the record should clearly show that, after the hearing, there was some interval in which you reviewed all this, you were able to refresh yourself as to what was said, what the questions were, and what the responses were. I think, if we lay those aside, Mr. Altman's letters, clarifying in letters, the four of them that came, that there really-I don't think there's a plausible explanation as to why this record wasn't corrected very, very promptly. In fact, it should have been given in its complete form at the time, because he had the knowledge, you had the knowledge, the briefing material was there. It a all been gone over just ahead of time, but, certainly, after the fact, to have that kind of a delay occur. Then, all of these partial and incomplete letters come in. There's really no satisfactory explanation for that, that I can see, based on everything we've seen so far. I yield to Senator D'Amato. Ms. HANSON. May I respond? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, briefly. Ms. HANSON. I believe that Mr. Foreman-I know Mr. Foreman is mistaken about watching the video on Friday. I recall that it was the following week, I believe on March 1, 1994, and we were, specifically, looking for Senator Bond's questions. The CHAIRMAN. Here's my point to you, then. That's March 1, 1994. The first letter from Mr. Altman clarifying his testimony comes on March 2, 1994. A period of 10 days elapses when there was not only an incomplete but, I think, a misleading set of responses on record,
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:20:45) Ms. HANSON. Sir, it wasn't 10 days. If you recall, February 24, 1994, was a Thursday. On February 25, 1994, Mr. Altman recused himself at the end of the day on Friday, Then there was Saturday, 135 Sunday. Monday was February 28, 1994. Tuesday was March 1, 1994. That was when we played the tape, on March 1, 1994. So I The first letter came in on March 2, 1994. that was actually 3 days. ~ But, sir, I had been asking for a transcript. I asked, repeatedly, for a transcript. I don't know why I didn't get a transcript but I didn't have a transcript nor, to my knowledge, did anyone else in Treasury. Why the White House had a transcript on March 1, 1994, and I did not, I don't know. I asked for one repeatedly. I didn't have one. If I had one, I would have read it. The CHAIRMAN. I'm trespassing on the time. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Perhaps I misheard earlier. I thought you had stated that you had not seen this video at any time. Ms. HANsoN. No, I believe that I was asked whether I viewed it with Mr. Foreman the day after the testimony. Senator SARBANES. No, but I thought the question, then-perhaps I'm not recollecting well, but I thought the question then went beyond that, and asked more generally whether you had seen the video. Ms. HANSON, If it did) I would like to clarify the record. I did look at a portion of the tape with Mr. Foreman. I believe it was on March 1, 1994. Senator BENNETT. My memory is the same as the Senator from Maryland's I'm glad to have that clarification. The CHAiRmAN. It's late in the day and you've been here a long time. It's tiring. That's why it's important to pin these things down. If there's a mistaken impression, we can get it cleaned up, then, if there's a difference of opinion between witnesses, we can decide who's the most plausible, Senator DAmato, the time is on your side. Senator DAMATO. I'm going to yield to Senator Gramm, if I might, but I'd like to make an observation I think the Chair has pointed out. Senator Sarbanes. has alluded to it. Others have. It is inconceivable to me how, as a counsel and a distinguished and skilled lawyer-you didn't get to be General Counsel because you didn't have talent. You didn't have political connections. People were impressed, You had prepared Mr. Altman, and the issue of recusal was one of great significance. You testified to that. Later on, I'll get back to that. You testified he didn't undertake the recommendation You testified, when the Deputy Chief, Harold Ickes, said you should forget it "No, I won't. If I'm asked, I'm going to say it. Mr. Ickes understands." Regarding the February 2, 1994, meeting, the notes you prepared for it say, "I have decided I will recuse myself in the decisionmaking process," and then, you specifically said, "Yeah." You looked at Senator Bond, as he undertook this question again. You allowed a letter to go out which you helped to prepare and which came to the Committee on March 2, 1994, without any attempt, whatsoever, to correct that situation which you, were concerned about and which YOU watched on television with Mr. Foreman. Now, that is being, at the very least, less than candid and frank and gives us something that is so distorted, that it's not worthy in the least. I yield to Senator Gramm. That's my observation. 136 Ms. HANSON. Sir, may I respond? Senator D'AMATO. It's not a question. Ms. HANSON. May I respond? Senator D'AMATO. No, it's not a question, it's an observation. You can do it on someone else's time. Senator GRAmm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me go back and be sure that Senator D'AMATo. I have to tell you, if you want to respond, I still want to see that Senator Gramm gets his time. The CHAIRMAN. By all means. Why don't you go ahead and re-. spond. You can repond on my time and we'll protect Senator Gramm's-we're going tome Senator Gramm all the time he. needs on this issue. I've to him that, and I intend to see that it's done. Why don't you go ahead and make your comment, Ms. Hanson, then we'll go to Senator Gramm. Ms. HANSON. Sir, I take my responsibilities very seriously, and I did everything that I could, consistent with my responsibilities as I understood them. You may disagree, sir, but I believe that I dis- charged my responsibilities consistent with what they are. Events occurred that I didn't anticipate, and if they hadn't occurred, we wouldn't be here discussing this, but they did. Senator GRAmm. Mr. Chairman The CHAiRmAN. Senator Gramm.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:25:35) Senator GRAmm, Let me, first of all, clarify things. As I always tell my children, don't argue about facts; argue about theory. So, let me just clear up the facts. In the deposition of Clifford Sloan, he says that the White House had a rough copy of the transcript by Monday, February 28, 1994. We know that they bad the complete transcript by March 1, 1994, because Mr. Podesta put the copy of the transcript in a memorandum to the file. We know that, in fact, Mr. Podesta called Mr. Altman on March 1, 1994, and we know, from Mr. Cutler's testimony, that he said to him, that be expressed concern "with Mr. Altman's omission of the fall meetings and his possible recusal as a subject of discussion on the February 2, 1994, meeting." We know that Mr. Altman was called on March 1, 1994. We know there were at least two different copies of the transcript before March 1, 1994 and we know that you watched the tape on March 1, 1994, We know that, by February 28, 1994, Josh Steiner, who was the Chief of Staff at the Treasury Department, wrote the following in his diary. He wrote "At the hearing, the recusal, in amazingly, did not come up. The GOP did hammer away at whether Roger Altman had had any meetings with the White House. He admitted to having had one to brief them on the statute deadline. They also asked if staff had had meetings, but Roger Altman gracefully ducked the question and did not refer to the phone calls he had had." Now, the Chief of Staff knew that Robert Altman had gracefully ducked the question Ms. HANSON. Roger Altman. Senator GRAmm. Roger Altman. Please forgive me. I'm sorry I gracefully ducked the question. Two copies that Roger Altman had of the transcript were available. You had watched the tape, and yet, when the letter was written to us, nowhere-if I could have 137 the letter just one second-nowhere in this letter is there any ref. erence to the fact that you hadn't bad a chance to look at the transcript or look at the tape. In fact, not only are there two copies available, not only have you looked at the tape, but Mr. Podesta, from the White House called and said to Altman in a direct conversation, "We think, on two issues, that you didn't tell the Committee the truth: One ' you, didn't mention the two meetings"-and this language suggests that he, at least, believed that Altman knew about those meetings-"and you didn't mention one of the subject matters you talked about." And yet, Mr. Altman sends us a letter on March 2, 1994, where he never, ever mentions the issue of recusal. In fact, by what you said today, on the recusal issue as discussed on February 2, 1994, Mr. Altman had said that he wanted to recuse himself. It was discussed. You say he wasn't under pressure, but yet, 22 days later, when be appeared before this Committee, he hadn't done it and he didn't do it until we asked him the question. I guess what I'm getting back to is this: You're the Legal Counsel of the Treasury Department. As I understand it, your job is seeing that people comply with the law. I can't understand this letterI don't understand the testimony-I don't see how somebody could be asked, point-blank about contacts, and they say, definitively, there's only one, though now we know about dozens of them. I don't know how someone could say, three times, that he talked only about one subject, and that subject was the statute of limitations, when, in fact, tremendous amounts of discussion had gone on about recusal. I don't understand that, there is no explanation for this March 2, 1994, letter. At least I'd like to give you an opportunity again, now that nobody is confused about the fact that there are transcripts out there. You have seen the tape. Roger Altman received a telephone call from the White House warning him that he had not told the Committee the truth. Why this letter.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:30:56) Ms. HANSON. If I might, to make it clear, I did not watch the tape. The reason I know that it was March 1, 1994, when I viewed a portion of the tape, was because when Mr. Podesta called Mr. Altman and told him about his responses to Senator Bond's questions, Mr. Altman asked me about it, and I had-we had to find a cassette player, a tape player, and find Senator Bond's questions because we didn't have a transcript. Now, why the White House had a transcript on Monday, or a draft on Monday and a transcript on Tuesday, and I didn't nave a copy, to my recollection, I haven't any idea, but that is where I was. In addition, I didn't have a transcript when the letter was written and the letter, as I said before, was intended to deal with one specific issue, that is, the fall meetings. I don't recall having a discussion with Mr. Altman about the recusal issue as it having to that letter, or hearing, that Mr. Podesta bad raised as an issue with Mr. Altman in his conversation. Senator GRAmm. Ms. Hanson, did you ever have any doubt about the fact that there had been a recusal discussion on February 2, 1994? HANSON. No, sir. GRAMM. And yet you beard Mr. Altman say, point-blank, three times. that no discussion had occurred of any subject except 138 the deadline, the February 28, 1994, deadline. I just continue to be puzzled. It's not as if the March 2, 1994, letter ended all this. He wrote another letter on March 3, 1994. He wrote another letter on March, 11, 1994. Not until March 21, 1994, does he mention this issue as part of the February 2, 1994, meeting, Why? Ms. HANSON. Sir, I don't know. As I stated, on March 4, 1994; Grand Jury subpoenas were served. Under instruction from my counsel, I no longer talked with anybody about the Madison matter or worked on the Madison matter. At that point, I still hadn't had an opportunity to read the transcript. I didn't have an opportunity to read the transcript until the weekend after the subpoenas were served. So the answer to your question, sir, is I don't know. Senator GRAmm. I just would like to make the point on this subject, that you're not an employee of the RTC. I guess I can understand filling in for Mr. Altman because be's busy. I understand that. (19:33:45)(End of tape #10061)
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(19:31:10)(Tape #10062 begins) when I viewed a portion of the tape, was because when Mr. Podesta called Mr. Altman and told him about his responses to Senator Bond's questions, Mr. Altman asked me about it, and I had-we had to find a cassette player, a tape player, and find Senator Bond's questions because we didn't have a transcript. Now, why the White House had a transcript on Monday, or a draft on Monday and a transcript on Tuesday, and I didn't nave a copy, to my recollection, I haven't any idea, but that is where I was. In addition, I didn't have a transcript when the letter was written and the letter, as I said before, was intended to deal with one specific issue, that is, the fall meetings. I don't recall having a discussion with Mr. Altman about the recusal issue as it having to that letter, or hearing, that Mr. Podesta bad raised as an issue with Mr. Altman in his conversation. Senator GRAmm. Ms. Hanson, did you ever have any doubt about the fact that there had been a recusal discussion on February 2, 1994? HANSON. No, sir. GRAMM. And yet you beard Mr. Altman say, point-blank, three times. that no discussion had occurred of any subject except 138 the deadline, the February 28, 1994, deadline. I just continue to be puzzled. It's not as if the March 2, 1994, letter ended all this. He wrote another letter on March 3, 1994. He wrote another letter on March, 11, 1994. Not until March 21, 1994, does he mention this issue as part of the February 2, 1994, meeting, Why? Ms. HANSON. Sir, I don't know. As I stated, on March 4, 1994; Grand Jury subpoenas were served. Under instruction from my counsel, I no longer talked with anybody about the Madison matter or worked on the Madison matter. At that point, I still hadn't had an opportunity to read the transcript. I didn't have an opportunity to read the transcript until the weekend after the subpoenas were served. So the answer to your question, sir, is I don't know. Senator GRAmm. I just would like to make the point on this subject, that you're not an employee of the RTC. I guess I can understand filling in for Mr. Altman because be's busy. I understand that. (19:33:45)(End of tape #10061) I have people on my staff that do things for me, trying to fill in for me. I understand that. What I don't understand is, you are the General Counsel of the Treasury Department. These things are your job, and it seems to me that, of all the other issues, having Roger Altman tell this Committee the truth was an important part of your job. He had all these opportunities, after be's been warned by the White House, he, or someone, has watched this tape, two different transcripts are available, yet not until March 21, 1994, does he get around to telling us this. It's something that I don't understand, and it seems to me, by any reading of your job description, that this was part of your job. Ms. HANsON. I disagree, sir. Senator GRAmm. Now, let me Ms. HANsON. I don't think it was my job to physically locate a transcript. I think it was my job to ask for a transcript, which I did, repeatedly. As I stated, why I didn't have one, I don't know. Senator GRAmm. When did you see a transcript? Ms. HANSON. It was later in that week. Senator GRAmm. Why did we not get the letter about the subject matter-the second subject matter of the February 2, 1994, meeting, then, until March 21, 1994?