Advanced Search
Lake Louise resort - flowers
Frasier River (Lake Louise)
Lake Louise area / mountains
Lake Louise
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:05:53) Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, we have not had an opportunity. The CHAIRMAN. I beg your pardon. Let me stand corrected. Let me give the whole answer here. On the Republican side, some of the time has been yielded to one Member, several times over in the rotation, as opposed to going down and getting every Senator. Not 145 every Senator on this side has been called upon, although I've tried to call on each one that I've understood to be wanting to be called upon. In fact, it would help me, now, to know what Senators, on both sides, would like to be called upon and, then, I will do so in the order in which we're proceeding. Senator Bryan, Senator Murray, and Senator Moseley-Braun wish to be called upon. At this point, Senator Boxer Senator BOXER. I already had my round, but I'll wait The CHAIRMAN. Senator Boxer has had one round-the voting period Senator BoxER. But I'll wait for the end, because I have More questions. The CHAIRMAN. On this side, Senator Gramm, Senator Bennett, Senator Roth, Senator Domenici, Senator Hatch, and Senator D'Amato wish to be called upon. That's why we have ordered in the pizzas tonight, Senator D'Amato's birthday day is today. Senator SHELBY Mr. Chairman when are they coming? The CHAIRMAN. Not soon enough. In any event, who's next in the order now rotating across to this Senator D'AMATO. I believe Senator Domenici is next. I yield to Senator Domenici. The CHAMMAN. Senator Domenici will go next on this side. Senator DOMENICI. How many times have you had an opportunity to correct the record when a witness that you represent, as le I counsel, has, in your opinion, failed to tell the whole truth? Ms. HANsON. To my recollection, this is the first time that I have been in a position, like this one, where there was a transcript that was going to be provided for me to review. I have reviewed other testimony, but I bad not been in this particular position before. Senator DOMENICI. Are you of the impression, the way we do business in the U.S. Senate is that, a witness can come before the Committee, tell half truths or one-quarter of the truth and, then, that gives him the right to take as long as he'd like to look through the transcript and correct it? Even if it's something as specific as, "Did you have only one meeting?" and the answer is, "Yes," but it turns out that there are at least three and maybe more? Is it your understanding that's the way the Senate does business.? at you have that right and Mr. Altman has that right? Ms. HANsON. It's my understanding--certainly, it's my understanding that the requirement is to testify truthfully. It's also my understanding that it is necessary, and what a careful lawyer does, to review the transcript and to correct it, if necessary, and supplement it. Sir, that was what I intended to do here. That was all I intended to do. Senator DOMENICI. I understand. Mr. Chairman, I might just state my own observation. The CHAIRMAN. Please. Senator DOMENICI. I really don't understand that to be the premise upon which we operate in terms of our records that witnesses can come and tell us a quarter of what's truthful or a half of what's truthful and then go see their legal counsel and say, "Let me correct it," and then correct it once, correct it twice, correct it ,three times. I think it's very unordinary that this matter was ban 146 dled like this and, frankly, I just call upon Senators who have here to recollect whether they think this is the way we do business. I mean, the fact of the matter-is, Mr. Altman did not tell this mittee the truth. Or, let's put it another way, the whole truth. Then you sought as you claim, in due course, to fix that record as I understand it. Ms. HANSON. Sir, that's not what I-what I've said. I think Altman and-and Mr. Altman will appear before this Coln, and you can ask Mr. Altman questions about his testimony, I have testified-is that, I intended to review all the questions answers to make sure that they were fully and completely swered, and I did not have an opportunity to do that. You're this was an unusual process, because a Grand Jury subpoena delivered to me on March 4, 1994, which terminated my ability participate in this process.
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:15:19) Senator DODD. I don't think Mr. McLarty was there. It was in his office, you testified, but he was not present. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator DOMENICI. Nobody else from' the White House has called ou about the subject matter of that meeting? Has anybody else been in contact with you? Ms. HANSON. As I testified, Neal Eggleston called me just before the hearing on the proposed answer to a question regarding the meeting, but other than that, no, sir. Senator DOMENICI. Just one last time, as you sat behind the table there, while Mr. Altman was testifying-and Secretary Bentsen was there, I recall it rather vividly-are you actually telling us today, that you did not clearly understand, right then and there, that he was not telling us all of the facts? Ms. HANSON. As I stated, sir, I realized that be bad not mentioned recusal. I did not know why he had done that. Senator DOMENICI. And you didn't choose to do anything about that until later on? Ms. HANsON. That's correct. I didn't think there was anything I could do about it, at that point, given the way he bad testified. Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAiRmAN, I think, in fairness to the witness, on this---and she can speak for herself, I'm not trying to speak for her-but she did say earlier, and it was confirmed in your deposition, that you felt, beyond a certain point, he had made such a declarative and definitive answer, if you will, that the moment bad passed where You thought you could intervene and, in a sense, broaden out the answer. Is that correct? 148 Ms. HANsON. That's coThe CHAIRMAN. I'm going to yield to Senator Bryan. Before I yield I just want to ask you if you think nk you've got the staying power tonight, to finish up this evening. I know this is a difficult exercise for you, and there are a lot of us and only one of you. I think it would be well if we could finish tonight, as opposed to carry 0 until tomorrow- MS. HANSON. That's fine. The CHAIRMAN. -but I don't want to do that if that--if you don't feel you want to stick it out here tonight. I don't know what your own energy level is in terms of responding. I'd like a little guidance from you. I'd like to finish, but I don't want to do that if it's beyond what you think your strength is here tonight Ms. HANsON. I'm prepared to continue, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Thank you. Senator Bryan. Senator BRYAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of things I find to be quite troubling here. I'm very disturbed at the way in which Mr. Altman was handled, both your conduct, with respect to it, and his. Tomorrow, well have a chance to ask him some questions. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bryan, I'm having a hard time hearing you. I'm wondering if you could get closer to that mike? Maybe we could turn it up a bit. Senator BRYAN. Mr. Chairman, is this a little better? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, it is. Thank you. Senator BRYAN. What I just said is that, I find a number of things troublesome and particularly disturbing to me in the way in which the Altman testimony was handled, both Mr. Altman's conduct and your conduct. I don't find your explanation persuasive, but I don't want to dwell on that. I think a number of others have made that point as well. I'm also bothered with the contacts with the Administration. It may very well be, as you suggest, that an ethical standard was not breached, but there is an appearance of impropriety and I don't believe there was the sensitivity that there ought to , have been with respect to that issue. What I want to talk to you a little bit about, now, and get the benefit of your thinking, is an area that I've explored with several other witnesses and that is the relationship of the RTC to the Treasury. Those of us who were here in 1989, when we worked on the FIRREA legislation, certainly had the impression, I think it's fair to say, that we were creating an independent relationship between the RTC and the Treasury. Perhaps, as you've. indicated on page 2 of your testimony today, it was not as independent as, say, the SEC, because there was no fixed term. I think that is correct, but yet, clearly, there was an independent relationship contemplated. You, obviously, take a different point of view. Let me just say that, in this morning's testimony, a number of the witnesses who were questioned were concerned about the absence of that independent relationship they thought was important. Mr. Roelle commented, during the course of his testimony, that the RTC did not operate independently of the Treasury, "Everything we do is cleared by the Treasury." " Mr. Katsanos was very concerned about the relationship. He felt that, and inherently, and I'm 149 paraphrasing, the two hats that Mr. Altman wore made it a very difficult relationship, and even Mr. Ryan commented that he felt the lines of authority were blurred. The line of questioning that I'd like to pursue with you is what the nature of the RTC is. Is it simply a bureau, as one witness commented in disagreeing with that perception, is it just a bureau within the Department of Treasury, or is it just an entity within the Department? Give me the benefit of your thinking, of how you understand and how you perceive this relationship.
Shades Of Aviation Past
Look what the Germans have got airborne once again - there hasn't been a rigid airship aloft since the tragedy of the Hindenburg until now. It's a 20-foot model built by a Bavarian watchmaker and it would do Count Zeppelin proud as it flies over the roofs of the fascinated townsfolk. You see the second stories of houses and floating above them is a zeppelin, looking very slick. CU - A little blond haired boy looking up at the airship. The zeppelin is making a nice and easy landing. Teenagers on their bikes watching the landing of the airship. Model of a zeppelin and the builder pulling it along holding it on a string. The two builders of the model airship. MS - Once again they are letting the 20 foot model up in the air again. "Altvater". MS - The builder of the Altvater is putting it through different maneuvers.
Princeton 51 to Penn State 0
The Princeton Tiger goes for 14 straight victories and has no trouble with Pennsylvania as they run roughshod. It seems that touchdowns get so monotonous that they let Charlie Goggled kick a field goal or two (or three, as it turns out). Throngs of fans fill up the stadium. High Angle Shot - Princeton has the football and takes it just outside the goal line. High Angle Shot - Princeton is handed off the ball and takes it over the goal line and Princeton is on the scoreboard. MS - Princeton fires a shot deep into the end zone, it is caught and Princeton scores again. High Angle Shot - Googled kicks the football and it is good for a point. High Angle Shot - Scoreboard Princeton 17 - Penn State 0. High Angle Shot - Princeton throws short and runs it in for another touchdown. High Angle Shot - Princeton throws another pass, it is caught and is ran in for a touchdown. MS - Princeton runs the ball for 16 yards. MS - Princeton gets the ball again and pulls off a razzle dazzle right down the middle for a touchdown. High Angle Back Shot - Fans sitting and cheering in the bleachers. High Angle Shot - Googled kick the ball for a 43 yard field goal. MS Princeton takes the ball through the middle for 11 yards. MS The final touchdown. Final score 51 to zip, Princeton gets its 14th straight win.
Michigan State Tops In Big 10
The Spartans, undefeated, meet Purdue, one tie. In a game that may prove the Big Ten title. Purdue has command during the first three quarters, but Michigan State lets loose in the final fifteen minutes to score two touchdowns for a 14 to 10 victory. They can smell those Rose Bowl roses. Purdue University football stadium, marching band is spelling out P-U-R-D-U-E and throngs of football fans in the background sitting in the football stands. CUS - 16 mm camera pointed down at the football fans. LS - Michigan State's marching band is on the field. High Angle Shot - Purdue has the football and makes it down the field gaining 21 yards. High Angle Shot - The Michigan line stiffens and Purdue has to settle for a field goal. MS - Purdue runs the ball in for a touchdown. MS - Scoreboard - Purdue 10 / Visitors 0. In the fourth quarter Michigan State breaks loose and the ball is handed off and he runs it 16 yards. High Angle shot, Purdue's defenses are crumbling and Spartan bulls over from the one and he scores the first Spartan touchdown. MS - Scoreboard Michigan 10 / Purdue 8. MS - Purdue is forced to punt the football, and the Spartans run the ball to the 39 yard line fighting for every yards he gains. High Angle Shot - Michigan has the ball goes around the side and runs in a 8 yard touchdown. Michigan State 14 / Purdue 10.
UN Children's Fund Wins 1965 Nobel Peace Prize Award
The United Nations Children's Fund was founded after World War II to rescue the children of war torn nations. That work completed, it turned its efforts in 1953 to aiding the youngsters of 118 nations in all parts of the globe. Hunger and disease recognize no national barriers and UNICEF has dispatched food and medicine to Asia and Africa, to Latin America and to Europe. It has been this dedicated work that has brought the Children's Fund the 1965 Nobel Prize. Here is a camera report on its work - and its aims. A filmed tribute to a cause all men embrace.
The National Horse Show: Glittering Event Opens NY Season
When the National Horse Show opens in New York on the heels of the curtain going up on a new Metropolitan Opera season, you can be sure that New York's social life is back in full swing. The US Equestrian team jumps into a big lead on opening night as diamonds and furs take a back seat to the brilliance of the performance in the ring. CUS - Marquee all lit up; National Horse Show. Argentina, Canada, Ireland, Mexico & United States. CU - High Society arriving with their minks, and tuxedos High Angle Shot - Audience sitting in the chairs of the stadium applauding. CUS - Audience. High Angle Shot - Brass band playing music in the middle of the ring where the horses will perform. MS - Audience standing and applauding after hearing National Anthems. High Angle Shot - A member of the US Equestrian Team riding his steed through the paces. High Angle Shot - An American gal is riding her steed, Fire One. CUS - Audience applauding in approval. MS - Stinecroust and his winning steed and team mates center ring.
Vietnam Report: Congressmen Tour Refugee Camps
Film has some damage It's the season for Congressional junkets and South Vietnam refugee camps are visited by a legislative party that includes Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. A center at Hoakhanh near Danang military base is sheltering civilians driven from their homes as the Vietcong were backed deeper into the jungle. A Wide Angle Shot of the camp with refugees and soldiers walking about. The faces of some of the children in the camp, holding up little American flags. A young Senator Edward Kennedy. Refugees standing very orderly watching Senator Kennedy. Panning Shot - American aid neatly stacked, food, medicine etc. Rear shot - Senator Kennedy's motorcade driving to another camp near Danang military base. MS - Children standing on a porches of large huts that are raised by post. CUS - Little boy ages from 5 to 13 years old. Side profile of Senator Edward Kennedy looking over some papers. A Vietnamese mother holding a child in her arms standing in a door way. Senator Kennedy walking with an army entourage.
Beatles Play The Palace
The Queen's Palace has lived through many historic events - but few like this one. A screaming, weeping, throng storms the gates of Buckingham as the Beatles are invested with the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. It's reward for their work in bringing foreign exchange to Britain, yea, yea. yea... A bobby directing traffic, and throngs of the very young surrounding the walls and gates of the Queen's Palace. MS - Young girls dancing around, teenage boys with long hair and their wearing suit jackets. The young Beatles, Ringo, John, Paul and George. CUS - Young George Harrison. Camera panning - Paul McCarthy, John Lennon and at last Ringo Star. MS - A very long Rolls Royce driving away from the Queen's Palace. MS - Bobbies with their arms interlocked holding back the crowd., girls jumping up and down.
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:20:56) Ms. HANSON. I understand, as I testified, that the RTC is a corporation, that it is overseen by an oversight board of which the Secretary of the Treasury is the Chairman, and that the statute that ou referred to established authority of the RTC and the oversight board and gave the RTC the authority to deal with case-specific and day-to-day operations, among other things, separate an independent from the oversight board. That is, the oversight board is not to interfere with case-specific matters or day-to-day operations. Typically, had it not been for the fact that Mr. Altman had-was also appointed as the Interim CEO under the Vacancy Act, there would have been involvement of staff of the Treasury Department. That has, historically, been the case, giving staff support to the Secretary in his capacity as Chairman of the oversight board, but there would have been much less involvement than there ere had been this last year. The difficulty, sir, and this was a difficult time-I already had a full-time job. I didn't need more work to do. On the other hand, Mr. Altman also had-Mr. Altman had two full-time jobs and he called upon a certain number of people in the Treasury to assist him in carrying out his functions simply because it was physically impossible for him to do it all. As I stated, he had statutory authority, as the Interim CEO, to call upon other Executive Branch personnel, and he also had statutory authority, as the Deputy Secretary, to grant that assistance. It was a difficult situation, I will tell you, sir. Senator BRYAN. I acknowledge that. I think Mr. Altman had a very difficult situation. Ms. HANSON. In fact, one of the happiest days of my life was when Ellen Kulka, who I hold in extremely high regard, joined the RTC as the General Counsel. I would say, if I understood Mr. Roelle correctly as he testified this morning, the case-specific issues were handled at the RTC, the Treasury people were involved in policy issues, and the oversight board does have statutory authority to be involved in policy matters. There was a real attempt made, at the Treasury, to make sure that Treasury staff were only involved to the point of either assisting Mr. Altman in carrying out his. decisions, or advising him, in his capacity as Interim CEO, on Policy issues, and to not interfere with the day-to-day issues or the case-specific matters at the RTC. ., Senator BRYAN. My view was that Mr. Altman, who had a difficult situation wearing two hats, really, had two hemispheres of authority and responsibility. One, was as Deputy Secretary and, as You indicate, that, in and of itself, would be a full-time job and, during some interim period of time, he was also the Acting Head of the RTC. 150 What I find interesting is that, there does not seem to be, least in your thought process, any distinction, am I being asked in my capacity as General Counsel to the Treasury, which is clearly your responsibility, or is Mr. Altman framing a question that more appropriately is with respect to his responsibility as the RTC Head. Did you ever, for example, in conversing with Mr. Altman--not specifically in the context of this case-but did you ever say to him "Mr. Altman, really, that is a RTC responsibility. I think it would be more appropriate if you talked with Ms. Kulka, because she your General Counsel" Ms. HANSON. Absolutely. Senator BRYAN. So you did make that statement?
Color Clues Prologue
A prologue to the film "Color Cues for Better Living" (FFS-AA1075), introducing the audience to the needs for color in the home. FI on Irma Deutreaux, color consultant for the O'Brien Paint Corporation. She is seated at a table with displays of fabrics, books and paint samples. She addresses the audience on the subject of decorating your home. She discusses "loading" a paint by adding extra pigments, and shows samples. Dissolve to color wheel formed by paint pigments blending in a wheel. Dissolve to color samples filling the screen. Dissolve to manuals and booklets for the customer. Chip board, showing actual paint swatches. Book of color schemes, the pages being flipped. Back to the decorator. FO.
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:25:22) Ms. HANSON. Absolutely. When Ms. Kulka came on board, every decision, every discussion, should have been between Mr. Altman and Ellen Kulka. The problem, sir, was that Mr. Altman bad a limited number of hours in his day, just like we all do, and he ph ically was unable to interface with all of the people that be needed to. What tended to happen, and as some of my testimony indicates people were called, Treasury people, to get information to Mr. Alt! man and Mr. Altman would talk with Treasury people to give infor- mation to the RTC. It was a difficult situation and, frankly, nobody was very happy about it, but it was work that needed to be done and we aid it. Senator BRYAN. Perhaps it's a hybrid that we need to revisit. I note that my time is up. Let me just-I've been critical in some of my observations, but I think we need to put this in some perspective as well. As I see the record, as I read it, and as I bear the testimony, I think, although a number of errors in judgment were made, in the final analysis the record is clear that neither the President, nor anybody in this Administration, did, in fact, interfere with the RTC insofar as its referral process or any investigative aspect relating to Whitewater. I think that that is important for me to say as well as being critical. I yield back to the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bryan. Again yielding on the Republican side, I'm following the instruction of Senator D'Amato as to where be wants their time block to go, and be wants it to be assigned to Senator Gramm. Senator GRAMM. Ms. Hanson, this is the last time that we're going to get to bear from you, and I want to be sure we have all the relevant questions asked, I guess it is obvious, from everything we've heard, that the September 29, 1993, meeting was the first meeting that you ever had with the White House about this subject? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator GRAMM. I think this is a very important point, did Mr. Altman tell you to have that meeting? Ms. HANSON. Yes, sir. Senator GRAMM. Did you, ever 'hold a meeting with Mr. Nussbaum, or anybody that high at the White House, without specific instructions from Mr. Altman to have such a meeting? Ms. HANSON. On a subject like this, sir, no. Senator GRAMM. So it would have been totally out of the realm of possibility that you would have gone over to the White House to talk to the President I s Counsel, about a subject like this, without 151 Mr. Altman having said to you, "Ms. Hanson, go over there and talk to the people at the White House"---as it turned out, there were a whole bunch of them there. There is no possibility that you would have ever done that without Mr. Altman's explicit, direct instructions? Ms. HANSON. As I sit here, sir, I can't recall every conversation that I have ever had with anyone in the White House, but, certain on an issue like this one, I would not have done it without Mr. Altman's authorization. Senator GRAMM. We know since--and you have seen it and you've forgotten writing it and, believe me, I forget lots of letters I sign every day, so I'm not trying to make a big point out of it, but we know that, on September 30, 1993, you sent Mr. Altman a memo in which you say that you have spoken to the Secretary, and that you've talked to Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Sloan. So Mr. Altman told you to go. To the best of your knowledge, given that you looked at the memo, it had your signature on it, and it the kind of memo you would have written regarding subjects that you would have written memos on, to the best of your knowledge, having seen this memo, your testimony is, that he not only told you to go, but that you gave him hard copy that you had gone! Ms. HANSON. That's how I interpret that memo, yes, sir. Senator GRAMM. At the meeting on October 14, 1993-this is the second fall meeting-did Roger Altman tell you to go to that meeting, or did you tell him you were going to that meeting? Ms. HANSON. I don't recall discussing that meeting with Mr. Altman. Senator GRAMM. Is it likely you would have gone to the White House for this meeting without telling him? Ms. HANSON. I believe-it was my understanding, sir, that meeting was simply to discuss press inquiries that were being received at the Treasury. I was asked to go by Mr. Steiner, Mr. DeVore, or both of them, both senior Treasury officials, and I wouldn't necessarily have gotten-sought specific permission from Mr. Altman to do that.
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:30:33) Senator GRAMM. I guess I'm puzzled about your role in press releases-I mean, press leaks. You're the General Counsel. I know it's Your job to be sure that people at the Treasury are complying with the law. How did you get this job, as a key input, on this press leak issue? Ms. HANSON. As I say, I was asked-I was given this information unsolicited. I understand Mr. Altman asked Mr. Roelle to give this information to me. I gave the information to Mr. Altman. He asked me to speak with Mr. Nussbaum. Mr. Nussbaum, as I stated and as I understood,' was the appropriate contact person in the White House, with respect to investigations, so he would have been the right person to talk to. Senator GRAMM. Investigations or press leaks? Ms' HANSON. This was a press leak that also related to an investigation. Senator GRAmm. At the meeting of February 2, 1994, at which Mr. Altman was present, you talked about a lot of issues. Obviously we know of the two that have been mentioned. At that meeting , to the best of your memory, did anyone ever casually, tangen- 152 tially, or in any way mention the meeting of September 29 1 or the meeting of October 14, 19939 Ms. HANSON. On February 2, 1994? Senator GRAmm. Yes. Ms. HANSON. No, sir. Senator GRAMM. A very relevant issue, it seems to me is'' Mr. Altman wrote to us on March 2, 1994. He said, "I have' le today, of two conversations which did take place between Treasury staff and the White House." He says that in his March 2, 194 letter. Now, you tell us that he told you to go to the White House for the September meeting. You have verified that this is your memo to him, after you came back, that it has your initials on it, and the kind of memo you would have written. So there were at two contacts with Mr. Altman regarding the September meeting One, he told you to go and, two, when you came back you gave this memo. Did you ever talk to him about the meeting on Sep ber 29, 1993, or the meeting on October 14, 1993? Senator GRAMM. Yes. At any time prior to his testimony? Ms. HANSON. I don't recall ever having a conversation with him about the October 14, 1993, meeting one way or the other. I don't recall having a conversation with him about the September 29, 1993, meeting, although, as I've testified, my September 30, 1993, memorandum was located. At the time that the March 2, 1994, let- ter was written, the statement that he made was consistent with my recollection at the time. We've gone over these questions. Senator GRAmm. Ms. Hanson, let me stop you right there because this is a different issue. Mr. Altman writes, here in his letter, that he has just learned "today" of these two meetings. He just' learned "today," that's what this says. You say that be sent you to the first of the two meetings, and we have a memo that you gave him telling him that you went and, basically what happened. You saw this letter, did you ever say to him, "Mr. Altman, you told me to go to the first meeting, and I sent you a memo on that meeting. How can you write a letter to this Committee of Congress, saying you just found out about it today?" Did you ever raise that issue with him? Ms. HANSON. Sir, at the time that letter was written, that statement was consistent with my recollection. I have testified that it wasn't until after that letter that I-as I worked on the process of recalling what had happened last fall-that I recalled that I had a conversation with him about it and that he sent me. It wasn't until the search for the documents, in response to the Independent Counsel's subpoena, that the September 30, 1993, memo was located, and I have no recollection, independent recollection, as I sit here now, of having written it, although it is clear to me that I did. At the time Mr. Altman wrote that letter, it was consistent with my recollection of the matter and I will tell you, that is a good ex- ample of why trying to deal with things piecemeal, rather than dealing with them in an orderly fashion, can be a problem.
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:35:26) Senator GRAMM. Ms. Hanson, you've 1 already said to us that you would have never gone to this September 29, 1993, meeting save a direct order by Mr. Altman. How could you, then, think that he did not know about the meeting? I forget a lot of things, but I don't 153 forget there are some things, that are extraordinary enough, that I would not do unless somebody told me to do them. I wouldn't forget they had told me to do them. Ms. HANSON. Sir, that letter was put together very quickly, late in the day, in response-and it dealt, only, with the responses to Senator Bond's questions. As I stated, we had several conference calls with Jack DeVore on March 2, 1994, trying to even remember why the October 14, 1993, meeting had taken place and who was there. We had just not thought about it for a very long time. I had not thought about it, seriously, for a very long time. Senator GRAmm. Ms. Hanson Senator SASSER. Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt the Senator, but many of us are waiting to do our questioning and when we- Senator GRAmm. I'll come back when it's our turn. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sasser makes a good point, and I appreciate your desisting. I would hope that, in the remainder of the evening if we can we're going to try to stick to the lights. It would be helpful if everybody would Keep track of it, on both sides, so that I don't have to interrupt, because I prefer not to, but I will if we run much over. Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I hope you will stick to the lights and then we can all stay late, those of us who want to stay late. I'm willing to stay Senator GRAmm. If you'll just tap your gavel-what happens is you start looking at your notes and you're not looking at the lights. The CHAIRMAN. I understand. It's happened on both sides. That's a fair way to do it. Senator Moseley-Braun. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm only chuckling, Mr. Chairman, for Senator Murray and myself This is our first round, and you just went to the light system, for real, on our first round. And it's OK. It's all right, We understand. I just want to clarify, for the record, with Ms. Hanson. Ms. Hanson, as General Counsel for the Department of Treasury, you did not have any direct role with regard to the RTC. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator MOSELEY-BRAuN. So, with regard to the seven conversations and all of these involvements that you have regarding RTC matters, there was a clear blurring of the lines of responsibility? Ms. HANSON. As I've stated, Mr. Altman had the statutory authority to utilize Treasury personnel and had the statutory authorit ity, as the RTC CEO, to use that personnel. I, from my perspective, always considered myself to be acting in my capacity as General Counsel to the Treasury. That's the only capacity that I had. Senator MOSELEY-BRAuN. That is correct, but under the law, section 1441-A, when a member borrows an employee from another agency, it suggests that that is a---that's a specific act. In fact, it provides for reimbursement, as I recollect, of those borrowed appointiees. In that regard, bad you had a conversation with Mr. Altman that he was borrowing you from Treasury for purposes of your work on RTC-related matters? Ms. HANSON. No one considered it in those terms. The difficulty was that there were-it is difficult to parse all the various activi- 154 ties that people were involved in. As I stated, I was not involved in case-specific matters, I was not involved in day day-to-day operations. I was involved in specific things that Mr. Altman asked me to do. As Mr. Roelle stated earlier today, in fact--if I may just finish, Senator-as Mr. Roelle stated earlier today, the Treasury peo- ple were involved in policy issues. Policy issues are within in province of the oversight board. The oversight board has the authority to utilize personnel, whether on a reimbursable or other basis. So, from my perspective, as I thought about it, the amount of time that I felt that I was actually spending in other than policy matters was small.
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:40:28) Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. But, Ms. Hanson, and recognizing again, there are procedures for the oversight board to bon em- ployees, there are procedures for the RTC to borrow employees' gut, in the absence of a conversation with Mr. Altman regarding borrowing your services with regard to RTC matters, didn't you ' think it a little unusual that Mr. Roelle would call you about a criminal referral for the RTC? Ms. HANSON. No, I didn't think it was unusual. Mr. Altman had asked him to call me. As I stated, there were a limited number of Treasury people who assisted in this. This was known-many Of the responsibilities I was given were approved, directly or indirectly, by Secretary Bentsen. So no, I didn't. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Are you suggesting that Secretary Bentsen approved your activities with regard to the RTC? Ms. HANSON. In some of them-in terms of some of the policy areas that I was involved in, they were approved, directly or indirectly, by Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. But with regard to- Ms. HANsON. Secretary Bentsen was aware of what I was doing. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. But, with regard to case-specific activities for the RTC, you had the explicit or the assumed approval, first, of Mr. Altman and, then, of the Secretary? I would like your answer to the question, did you, have Ms. HANSON. Let me back up to say I bad very limited involvement in an anything that was case-specific, and I think that is consist in ent with what Mr. Roelle said this morning. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. You use the word "parsing." Did it occur to you, in your role as General Counsel for the Treasury, that there might be an ethical problem with the blurring of these lines? Ms. HANSON. No. Senator, it didn't. Senator MOSELEY-BRAuN. Second, with regard to your participation in the meetings, when you attended the meetings, in what capacity did you attend those meetings, in what capacity did you think you were attending those meetings? Ms. HANSON. I attended them in my capacity as General Counsel to the Treasury. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Did you think that it was appropriate to discuss specific case issues before the RTC wearing your General Counsel of the Treasury hat? Ms. HANsON. The only conversations that I had) that were at all case-specific, were-the only conversation was my conversation with Mr. Nussbaum, which was authorized by Mr. Altman and related to press leaks that Mr. Nussbaum was going to have to deal 155 with. It was a legitimate governmental purpose, and the Office of Government Ethics, who has looked at this, has said that it was a legitimate governmental purpose as long as I wasn't trying-as long as I wasn't advancing a private interest, which I wasn't. They found no evidence, nothing to conclude that there was even-there was anything that would advance a private interest. Consequently, there wasn't a problem doing that. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. But the information that was discussed at that meeting was nonpublic information. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. It was nonpublic-to my knowledge, my specific knowledge at that time it was. However, it was-it either had leaked to the press-to & public, or was imminently going to leak. Senator MosELEY-BRAUN. But imminent became a month later, the first reports of this referral didn't come until a month later? Ms. HANSON. As I stated earlier, the chronology that was prepared by the Inspectors General, that just became public yesterday, says their first entry is September 23, 1993, that says that, Mr. Dudine, who is the rector of the Office of Investigation s-and he refers to a reporter who is getting close to something about the criminal referrals, That was a week before my conversation. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Again, to ask the question, did you have any concern at all, or did you discuss with Mr. Nussbaum or with Mr. Altman any concerns, about the propriety of your participating in meetings regarding this nonpublic information given your role as Treasury Counsel? Ms. HANSON. The fact that I was a Treasury Counsel?
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:45:27) Senator MOSELEY-BRAuN. Did you have any discussions with anyone regarding the propriety of your playing this role---I mean, you weren't RTC Counsel but you were playing a role that was Ms. HANsoN. I was asked by Mr. Altman to play this role. He ism superior. my Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. OK, but you didn't have- MS. HANSON. I believed then, and I believe now, that it was the appropriate thing to do. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Can you just-but did you have any concern, or did you have any discussion with anyone around-concerning- the propriety- Ms. HANSON. No I didn't. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. -of what you were doing? OK. The CHAIRMAN. I think, you know, she's Senator MOSELEY-BRAuN. She did now. The CHAIRMAN. I think she's made it clear that she doesn'tshe's on the other side of that point, and makes it very clear. Senator Hatch. Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanson, here I am. Let me turn to the February 2, 1994, meeting at the White House in which Roger Altman informed White ouse officials that he was recusing himself from the RTC's decision to pursue a civil action in Madison Guaranty. It's correct, it., that Bernie-Bernie Nussbaum, who was then the White House Counsel, was very concerned over who at the RTC would be making the decisions in the Madison Guaranty matter if Roger Alt an recused himself? Ms. HANSON. lie did ask. He did ask, yes. 156 Senator HATCH. So, he was concerned. It's also correct, isn't it that Mr. Nussbaum was particularly concerned that Ms. Kulka, the new General Counsel at RTC, would be making the decision on whether to pursue a civil action? Is that a fair characterization? Ms, HANSON. He said that she was tough. Senator HATCH. Mr. Nussbaum didn't express any concerns about Ms. Kulka's professional skills, did he? Ms. HANSON. No. Senator HATCH. He didn't express any concerns about her integrity ? Ms. HANSON. No. Senator HATCH. Instead, Mr. Nussbaum's was concern that Ms..,. Kulka was a tough lawyer. Right? Ms. HANSON. That's what he said. Senator HATCH. He didn't view her as a patsy, in other words Ms. HANSON. That's right. Senator HATCH. He said his judgement was based on her work as a Government lawyer when he was in private practice. Isn't that correct? Ms. HANSON. That's what I understood, yes. Senator HATCH. So it's fair to say Mr. Nussbaum's objection to Ms. Kulka was that she was tough in representing the interests of the Government and the American people against private persons who engaged in alleged wrongdoing that cost the American taxpayers lots of money. Ms. HANSON. I understood that be had worked with her when she was with the Office of Thrift Supervision, yes. Senator HATCH. Mr. Nussbaum, at that time, raised his voice and became somewhat emotional. Isn't that true? Ms. HANSON. Mr. Nussbaum did raise his voice, at the beginning, but he's an animated person. Senator HATCH. While he was raising the objections about Ms. Kulka, that's when he raised his voice? Ms. HANSON. When be was asking questions about Ms. Kulka, yes. Senator HATCH. At the end of this meeting on February 2, 19940 Mr. Nussbaum pulled you aside and asked you who made this decision to hire Ms. Kulka as General Counsel of the RTC. Right? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator HATCH. He told you that he should be consulted in the hiring decision. Wasn't that right? Ms. HANSON. That's right. Senator HATCH. He felt that the decision, on who was to be RTC General Counsel, was one that he should have made, or at least had some part in. Ms. HANSON. That's not what I understood. But that he was I understood that he was to have been consulted. Senator HATCH. It was part of his White House turf is the way I would interpret that. Ms. HANSON. I don't know how to interpret it. Senator HATCH. That's fine. It's true, isn't it, Mr. Nussbaum called you again the following day, on February 3, 1994, and asked you how Ms. Kulka had been hired, asked you again. MS. HANSON. That's correct. 157 Senator HATCH. The very next day, February 4, 1994, Mr. Nuss. baum again telephoned you regarding the scope of the charter of Special Counsel Fiske in the Madison Guaranty/Whitewater matter. Ms. HANSON. Yes, he called me to say that it was available, to make sure that I knew it was available. Senator HATCH. Incidentally, it hadn't been the typical case that he called you daily before then, had it? Ms. HANSON. No, sir. Senator HATCH, But he was calling you daily, at that time, as, we've discussed. MS. HANSON. Right, during the limited period we are discussing, that is, February 3 and 4, 1994. Senator HATCH. In this telephone call about the charter of the Special Counsel, Mr. Nussbaum pointed out to you that the charter could be read to give the Special Counsel authority to pursue civil actions in Madison Guaranty. Isn't that so? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator HATCH. Mr. Nussbaum suggested to you that Mr. Altman might want to take this into account in determining how to proceed with the RTC investigation? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator HATCH. You understood, from this series of contacts with Mr. Nussbaum, that Mr. Nussbaum thought it preferable to have Mr. Fiske, rather than Ms. Kulka, have jurisdiction over the decision whether or not to pursue a civil action on behalf of the RTC against the persons affiliated with Madison Guaranty?
Vacation Days
Robert M. Altman Presents Vacation Days in Colorado. Shot from moving car of rocky valley, then MS woman writing. Shots of storm clouds. MS girls in dude ranch clothing getting ready for rain. 02:32:35 Man feeding chipmunks who crawl up his leg. More scenery shots, horseback riding. 02:35:42 CU plaque for Land o Peaks Ranch, scenes of kids in mock-Indian garb at teepee and making smoke signals. 02:39:28 CU book cover, The Spell of the Rockies, and a young hand turns the pages (we see that it s Flora Louise s book). People dancing, including two women in horse riding breeches and boots. Kids float on raft in small body of water, try to keep their balance, and get off just in time. 02:41:20 MS man cooking on camp fire, people drinking from canteens and eating. 02:42:48 WS cows on farm, farmer with kid, and young cows in pen. 02:43:40 MS 3 girls with buckets ready to milk them cows, and rather dim shots of them doing so. Girl playing with dog, standing on her head. 02:51:34 title says Flora Louise Altman, March 21st 1927. Curtain rises on figurine holding a Robert M Altman Presents card, various takes of this. 02:52:17 CU barely legible title, Turkey Run 1932. People on a suspension footbridge, walking, hiking. They climb up wooden ladders and down again.
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:50:26) Ms. HANSON. He didn't state a preference, sir. He brought it to my attention and suggested that it be brought to Mr. Altman's attention. Senator HATCH. But, again, at that time, Mr. Nussbaum expressed his concern to you that Ms. Kulka was tough. Ms. HANSON. That was in the meeting on February 2, 1994. Senator HATCH. It's true, isn't it, that you pass on to Mr. Altman Mr. Nussbaum's suggestion that the Special Counsel should be, or could be, given jurisdiction over the RTC civil claims? Ms. HANsON. There was a question as to whether the Independent Counsel's charter covered the RTC Senator HATCH. Right, but you passed that on to Mr. Altman? Ms. HANSON. Yes, I did. Senator HATCH. As of February 4, 1994, Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Altman understood that the statute of limitations on RTC civil actions would expire on February 28, 1994. Right? Ms. HANSON. That's right. Senator HATCH. You called Ms. Kulka the next morning? Ms. HANSON. I did. Senator HATCH. That was Saturday, February 5, 1994? Ms. HANSON. That's In ' right. Senator HATCH. You telephoned Ms. Kulka at home. Right? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator HATCH. You told her that Mr. Nussbaum had proposed that Mr. Fiske might take over the RTC civil action, didn't you? MS. HANSON. What I recall, of that conversation, was that there was a question as to what the Independent Counsel's charter 158 meant and what the terms-because it said-as I recall it, and I don't have it in front of me-criminal or civil cases, and there war, a question as to what the "or civil" referred to Senator HATCH. But Nussbaum bad said that Fiske could take over the civil action. Ms. HANSON. No, that's not my recollection. He just brought it to- my recollection is that he just brought it to my attention, Senator HATCH. Isn't it true that Ms. Kulka reminded you that you and she had already spoken to Mr. Fiske on a prior occasion? Ms. HANSON. I had never spoken with Mr. Fiske, sir. She had spoken with Mr. Fiske. Senator HATCH. I see. You and Ms. Kulka, or at least Ms. Kulka discussed with him the scope of the investigation. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. I don't know, exactly, what Ms. Kulka discussed with Mr. Fiske. Senator HATCH. In your February 5, 1994, phone call-let me just read from page 421, Counselor, in your answer, you said, "Ms. Kulka had, an I had, spoken with Mr. Fiske on a prior occasion, Mr. Fiske, the Independent Counsel. And she said it was her impression from speaking with Mr. Fiske, that be was not interested in taking jurisdiction over the RTC civil investigation." Ms. HANSON. Is that from my Senator HATCH. That's, from your Ms. HANSON. I haven haven bad an opportunity to review it, but I think, if you read that through again, it's clear that the "and/or I" is not right, because that's a conversation that she had, that she's telling me about. Senator HATCH. Fine. In your February 5, 1994, phone call, I believe Ms. Kulka told you, it was her impression, that Mr. Fiske would not be interested in pursuing the civil claims. Ms. HANSON. Yes. Senator HATCH. You telephoned Mr. Nussbaum on February 8, 1994. Is that right? Ms. HANSON. On an unrelated matter, and thanked him for having brought the charter to my attention. Senator HATCH. At the time you called him, you, were of the view that the RTC civil case would not be handed over to Mr. Fiske. Isn't that correct? Ms. HANSON. I don't recall that I discussed it with him in that telephone call. It was my understanding, from speaking with Ms. Kulka, that Mr. Fiske had indicated to her that he-a disinclination to take the RTC civil investigation, even if his jurisdiction was sufficiently broad to cover it. Senator HATCH. But you conveyed your viewpoint to Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. HANSON. I don't recall that I did. Senator HATCH. Am I out of The CHAIRMAN. We're going to try to stick to the lights here. I don't want to foreclose. Do you have a follow-up question just to this? Senator HATCH. I have a number of them that would be followup. Senator DAmATo. I'll yield to you later. The CHAiRmAN. Senator Murray. 159 Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanson, earlier today, Stephen Katsanos, who's the Communications Director of the RTC, suggested that you had sent the September 30 1993, Early Bird, and a cover memo, to the White House. I have that memo here, and it's directed to Mr. Altman. Did you also send it to the White House? Ms. HANSON. No, I did not. I did send an Early Bird to the White House at some point. I don't recall which one it was, but I, certainly, didn't send the memo to the White House. Senator MURRAY. You did not send this memo to the White House? Ms. HANSON. No, I did not. Senator MURRAY. Do you know why Mr. Katsanos said that you did?
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:55:06) Ms. HANSON. I don't know. He may be mistaken. He must have been mistaken, because I know I did not. Senator MURRAY. Ms. Hanson, did you ever brief congressional staff on Madison, Senate staff? Ms. HANSON. No. I spoke with Senator Riegle, and his staff, on February 10, 1994, 1 believe. We were talking about a possible permanent CEO, and we had a conversation about the statute of limitations operation. And, I recall, we also talked briefly about whether-about Mr. Altman and the fact that he was-felt be could be impartial and was going to stay and Senator MURRAY. In that briefing, you, use the same talking points that Roger Altman used in his February 2, 1994, meeting? Ms. HANSON. No, I did not. Senator MURRAY. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I really agree with Ms. HANSON. No-if I could just clarify. I used--they were not the, identical, talking points that I used in-that Mr. Altman used in the February 2, 1994, meeting. They were, however, almost identical. They had-because they had been modified, for my use, to just talk about the statute of limitations issue, so yes, they were almost identical. Senator Mup-RAY. Would it be correct to say that information provided at the February 2, 1994, meeting was being shared elsewhere, specifically, in Congress or congressional briefings? Ms. HANSON. It's my understanding that was correct yes. Senator MURRAY. I tend to agree with my friend, Senator Bennett, who said a little earlier, 'If these meetings hadn't occurred, we wouldn't have to hold these hearings." I wish those meetings hadn't occurred, and I think my family, at this point, wishes they hadn't as well, but I understand the motivation. I think I know what it's like. I think we all do, when a press story is shaped by leaks and the inclination is to coordinate a response. If you hadn't met, we'd probably all be criticizing the Administration for being disorganized. Let me ask you the one, really, relevant question here. Have you, Ms. Hanson, ever done anything, anything whatsoever, to impede or derail an investigation at the RTC or the Department of Justice? Ms. HANSON. Never. Senator MURRAY. To be complete, are you aware of anybody who is responsible for derailing or impeding an investigation into Madison? 160 Ms. HANSON. No. Senator MURRAY. Do you know of anybody or have you yourself ever seen the criminal referrals? Ms. HANSON. I have never seen the criminal referrals. Senator MURRAY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman from MY unique perspective way down here, it seems to me that the chairs are getting empty and the yawns are getting larger so I'II yield back my time. The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand you need to take a short break? Ms. HANSON. Yes. The Chairman. I don't want your lawyer deciding it. I want you deciding it, and there's a big difference between the two. I mean, I'd gotten an indication that you needed one, but if that's his thinking not yours, we're going to continue, no disrespect to him. Ms. HANSON. Let's continue for a few minutes. The CHAiRMAN. Very good. Senator Hatch, you're re going to finish your line of questioning now. Senator HATCH. I'll try to finish this time. Ms. Hanson, when we finished before, you had called Mr. Nussbaum on February 8, 1994, and I wasn't quite sure what your answer was, but as I understand it, at the time you called him, you were of the view, personally, that the RTC civil case would not be handed over to Mr. Fiske at that time. Ms. HANSON. I don't remember what my view was, at that point, sir. I've told you what I understood from Ms. Kulka. Senator HATCH. You don't recall conveying that to Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. HANSON. I don't. Senator HATCH. You're not denying that you may have conveyed it to him at that time, are you? Ms. HANSON. I'm not denying it. I don't recall. Senator HATCH. Let me jump ahead a few weeks to February 24, 1994, the day that Mr. Altman testified before the Banking Committee. On that day, you received a call from Neil Eggleston. Is that right? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator HATCH. On February 24 1994. He was an attorney in the White House Counsel's Office. Correct? Ms. HANSON. Correct. Senator HATCH. He was, then, working for Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. HANSON. Yes. Senator HATCH. And Mr. Nussbaum called to ask you whether former U.S. Attorney, Jay Stephens, was the lead outside counsel representing the RTC in the Madison Guaranty matter? Ms. HANSON. This was after the hearing on February 24, 1994, yes. Senator HATCH. It was clear to you that Mr. Eggleston viewed this as a problem, wasn't it? Ms. Hanson. He just asked me the question. Senator HATCH. He wasn't the only Administration official who complained to you about the RTC's hiring of Mr, Stephens, was he? Ms. HANSON. He was the only White House official that I spoke to about the matter. 161 Senator HATCH. But he wasn't the only one who complained to you about it, was he? Ms. HANSON. There were other people in the Treasury Department that I spoke to. Senator HATCH. Anybody else in the Administration? Ms. HANsON. In the White House, no. Senator HATCH. In fact, Joshua Steiner, the Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary Bentsen, bad told you that be thought Ellen Kulka should be fired for hiring Stephens, hadn't he? Ms. HANSON. Yes, he did.
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(21:00:37) Senator HATCH. Michael Levy or Levy-I don't know how you pronounce it-who also works at Treasury, was part of this discussion you and Mr. Steiner had with Treasury. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. I had several conversations with Mr. Steiner, but there was one where Mr. Levy was present. Senator HATCH. Mr. Levy pointed out that lawyers hire lawyers based on their expertise as lawyers. Isn't that, basically, what he said? Ms. HANSON. That's my recollection. Senator HATCH. You agreed with him. Right? Ms. HANSON. That's right. Senator HATCH. Around this time, either Mr. Altman or Mr. Steiner telephoned you to ask how Jay Stephens had been hired. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. I was asked. I don't recall if it was in a telephone conversation. Senator HATCH. Do you remember whether it was Mr. Altman or Mr. Steiner who called you at that time? Ms, HANSON. I don't recall. I believe that my conversations were with Mr. Steiner, but I don't recall. Senator HATCH. You told Mr. Altman or Mr. Steiner that Mr. Stephens was hired through the normal RTC contracting procedures. Isn't that what you said? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator HATCH. In fact, you said that you were certain this was the case. Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator HATCH. But Mr. Altman or Mr. Steiner, nonetheless, insisted that you check to see if there was anything irregular in the process in which Jay Stephens was hired. Ms. HANSON. I was asked to check Senator HATCH. Double-check it. Ms. HANSON. To double-check how he was hired. Senator HATCH. You understood, at the time, Mr. Steiner was extremely unhappy with the fact that Jay Stephens bad been hired. Isn't that right? Ms. HANSON. I wouldn't say-I wouldn't characterize it as extremely unhappy, but yes. Senator HATCH. He was unhappy. Ms. HANSON. Yes, be was unhappy. Senator HATCH. In another conversation with Mr. Steiner, be asked you whether the RTC civil action could be given to the Whitewater Independent Counsel, Robert Fiske, rather than Ellen Kulka or Jay Stephens. Isn't that correct? 162 Ms. HANSON. I understood the question was whether the Independent Counsel could assume jurisdiction of the RTC Investiga-tion. Senator HATCH. That was in another conversation with Steiner, he asked you whether the RTC civil action could be given to the Whitewater Independent Counsel instead of the other two, Kulka or Stephens. Ms. HANSON I understood it to be Stephens. Senator HATCH. Right. You also knew, didn't you, that Mr. Steiner was receiving calls from the White House about Jay, Stephens? Ms. HANSON. I understood that. Senator HATCH. Let me go back to that other question. In an- other conversation with Steiner, as I understand it, according to your deposition, he asked you whether the RTC civil action could be given to Whitewater Independent Counsel Fiske rather than to Kulka or Stephens. Do you remember stating that in your deposi- tion? Ms. HANSON. Rather than Stephens? Senator HATCH. Rather than Fiske excuse me, than Kulka or Stephens. Ms. HANSON. Rather than Stephens, not Kulka- Senator HATCH. Kulka and Stephens. Ms. HANSON. She's the General Counsel of the RTC. Senator HATCH. I mean Kulka and Stephens, yes. I think your deposition says , "I also recall a conversation with Mr. Steiner in which he asks whether the Independent Counsel could take over the civil investigation in lieu of Mr. Stephens," and it goes on from there. Do you remember saying that? Ms. HANSON. Do I remember saying what? Senator HATCH. In your deposition that I just read to you. Ms. HANSON. Yes, I do. Senator HATCH. And that's accurate? Ms. HANSON. To my recollection, yes. Senator HATCH. You also knew, didn't you, that Mr. Steiner was receiving calls from the White House about Jay Stephens? Ms. HANSON. Yes, sir. Senator HATCH. In fact, Mr. Steiner told you the people at the White House wanted to see if they could get rid of Jay Stephens. Isn't that correct? Ms. HANSON. That is correct. He did say that. He said-what I recall him saying is, "Do you believe that they want to see if they can get rid of Jay Stephens and everyone agreed and understood that was ridiculous." Senator HATCH. Do you recall what dates those conversations took place? Ms. HANSON. It's my recollection that they took place after the testimony-the end of the day-later in the day, on February 2 , 1994, possibly running over to the morning of February 25, 1994. Senator HATCH. And others may have been several days earlier? Ms. HANSON. Others? Senator HATCH. With Steiner? Ms. HANSON. No, they were all within a very close time frame. 163 Senator HATCH. But some of them may have taken place on February 25, 1994. MS. HANSON. I just don't recall, sir. It all happened within a very brief time frame. (20:05:12)(Tape #10062 ends)