Advanced Search
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:26:02) Hearing resumes: The CHAiRmAN. Let me invite everybody to get seated so we can resume. Ms. HANSON. Senator Riegle, if I might , Senator Dodd raised some points before the break, and I did not have an opportunity to respond to them, adequately. I would like an opportunity to do so. The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. Ms. HANSON. Senator Dodd raised three areas of issue. One is authority. The second is the testimony, and the third is the contacts. In terms of the authority, I had plenty of authority to do what I was doing There was no need for a particular detail. There is an Attorney General's opinion that says no formal detail is required and, in fact, informal details happen all the time. To the extent what I was doing was a detail, although I didn't consider it to be a detail, there was ample authority for me to do that without having to have a writing in place to evidence it. With respect to the second issue, the testimony, as I have testified, I did not have a transcript and, as a careful lawyer, if you can't look at it, can't read it, and can't hold on to it, then, you can't respond to it, and I was not able to respond to it. I didn't have it. As I've testified, on March 4, 1994, my participation in this came to an end. That was the end of my participation in this. I can't respond to why it took 3 weeks or why other letters came in. I did not participate in it. I was under instruction from my counsel, having received a Grand Jury subpoena, to cease all involvement and a conversations with anyone about this matter, and I did that. The CHAIRMAN. I might say, I think it's important that did It's a significant fact, and was appropriate for you to do. That should be acknowledged. Ms. HANSON. The third issue that Senator Dodd raised was the contacts. I was involved in three contacts. I was involved in a meeting with Mr. Nussbaum, the purpose of which was to report on press leaks. I was involved in a meeting on October 14, 1993, that I was invited to, addressing specific press inquiries going to Treas- which created the implication that Treasury was---or the Ad-ministration was interfering in the proper processing of criminal referrals. It was in the interest of the Government to make certain that a story with incorrect information, that cast that sort of light on the Administration, was not written. The third meeting was the February 2, 1994, meeting in which the statute of limitations was discussed. This was -purely procedural, an application of law to facts. Mr. Altman's recusal was also 167 discussed at this meeting. Those are the contacts I have had. I have had other miscellaneous conversations with people. I have talked with attorneys in the office of-in the Counsel to the President. In my view, not a single one of them is significant. Mr. Cutler has said there were too many contacts. They were not controlled. That may very well be. My contacts-I had three principal contacts, and I've gone over them-each one, in my view,had a proper governmental purpose, and was legitimate and appropriate. The CHAIRMAN. I'm going to Senator GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for 1 second. The CHAIRMAN. I will in a second. I'm going to clarify Senator BOXER. We have to -keep with the time.
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:30:17) The CHAiRmAN. We are going to stay with the time. With respect to the transcript from the hearing, the Treasury Department received a transcript, from this Committee, the day after the hearing. If you're the General Counsel over there, and I don't know how things get passed around within the Treasury Department, we have the name of the individual that received the transcript the day after the hearing, So, you should understand, the record should be clear that the Treasury Department had a full transcript 24 hours after that hearing. Why you didn't get it, or somehow were out of the loop on it, we can't begin to answer, but you should understand, the Department, for which youre the top lawyer, had one the day after the hearing. Ms. HANsoN. Senator Riegle, Mr. Altman didn't have one on March 1, 1994, either, so I don't know what happened to the transcript. The CHAIRMAN. You may want to go back tomorrow and ask Ms. HANsON. I Will, absolutely, go back and check this out. The CHAIRMAN. I want to go to the questions. I'm going to call on Senator Roth. Is it critical, Senator Gramm, or should we go to Senator Roth? Senator GRAMM. III wait and come back. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Roth. Senator RoTH. Yes. Mr. Chairman, last Friday, in my opening remarks, I expressed concern about two things. One, was whether our rules, policy, and guidelines on matters of ethics and conflicts of interest were adequate. Second, whether or not these rules were adequately enforced. As I listen to the testimony today, I become aware there have been some pretty strict policies established both in the RTC, as well as in the White House, but the thing that concerns me, Ms. Hanson, is I see very little evidence of any effort being made to enforce these rules and regulations. In the case of the RTC, it was established this morning that it is the policy of the RTC not to disclose criminal referrals, or information about their preparation, on an institution-specific basis. In answer to a question as to whether there were any exceptions to that policy, whether referrals extended to press inquiries, we were told there were no exceptions of any type. Now, my question to you is whether or not, in your discussions and determination of contacting the White House, the policy of the RTC came under consideration in any way? 168 Ms. HANSON. No, sir, but I believe the policy of the RTC, as I understand it, is that criminal referrals are to be confidential and that there is no exception for talking to the press, If that's the case, then that policy and that regulation were breached by the RTC employee, or employees, who gave the press all this information which was the reason that I ended up talking with Mr. Nussbaum. If that hadn't occurred, then the conversations wouldn't have taken place. Senator ROTH. At the time you contacted Mr. Nussbaum, was it clear that there had been a leak, and were you aware of what that leak was? Ms. HANSON. There was absolutely no question in my mind, at the time I spoke with Mr. Nussbaum, that either it had been leaked or was about to be leaked. That view was confirmed, the following day, by an RTC Early Bird. In addition as I've stated, the IG report-the IG chronology, that was released yesterday, showed reporter interest on September 23, 1993. Senator ROTH. But, if I understand your testimony, Ms. Hanson, at the time you called Mr. Nussbaum, you did not, specifically, know whether or not there was a leak. As you just said, either there had been a leak or you knew there was going to be a leak. Ms. HANSON. Whether I knew---- Senator ROTH. The facts are you did not, actually, know at that time. Is that not correct?
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:35:17) Ms. HANSON. That's correct, and it was not relevant to my decision because, if I had sat around and waited to make sure there was a press leak, by that time, it may have been too late Senator ROTH. Are you saying that you believe because there might be a leak Senator D'AMATO. Will the Senator yield for just a moment? I'd like to know, too late for what? You come and you say-and I understand the contention that if there are leaks, et cetera, but there was no leak. You say because nu feared there was a leak, therefore you could then cross this ne to brief someone. It's very questionable whether they should have been briefed about a potential leak. The Senator says, "Well, at that point in time there wasn't a leak." You said, "Yeah, that's right, but it would have been too late." Too late for what? Ms. HANSON. Sir, I didn't say, at that time, there wasn't a leak and, in fact Senator DAmATO. The Senator said, and it was his contention, there was no leak. The records indicate there was no public information out at that time, Now, question, you then said, 'Well I that's why we bad to do it now because, otherwise, it would be too late.", What do you mean by "it would be too late"? Ms. HANSON. Sir, what I meant was it was necessary in my view, that the White House be in a position to prepare themselves for possible inquiries, for inquiries that, in my judgment understanding the situation and having spoken with Mr. Roelle, were going to occur and, in the end, in fact, occurred. Senator DAmATO. But what did they say when Ms. HANSON. In answer Senator DAMATO. Wait a minute. Ms. HANSON. May I finish? Senator DAMATO. Yes, go ahead. 169 MS. HANSON. May I finish, please? In fact, it did turn out that reporters had incorrect information and, if they had printed the story based on the incorrect information they had, it would have put the Administration in a prejudicial light, the implication being that there Senator DAmATo. Did you correct Ms. HANSON. May I finish? Senator ROTH. Mr. Chairman, may I have my full time? The CHAIRMAN. We're on your time. Senator DAMATO. I'll yield him my time. Ms. HANSON. May I finish my statement? Senator SARBANES. Why don't we let Ms. Hanson complete her answer and go back to Senator Roth? The CHAIRMAN. You can complete your answer. Ms. HANSON. The information that the reporter bad was that the referrals were being held up at the RTC and not forwarded to the Justice Department. That was the inquiry that came into the Treasury. The clear implication of the question being that the Administration or the Treasury was interfering with the processing of the criminal referrals. It was in the interest of the Government, I believe, that this story, this reporter's information, be corrected, and that this story not be printed. That is one of the reasons why people are aware of information, so that they can deal with inaccurate press stories, or press inquiries, that if printed, would be prejudicial and damaging. The CHAIRMAN. You've made that point. I want to ask the clerk to restore some of Senator Roth's time, so that the time of your statement isn't charged against his statement. Senator ROTH. Ms. Hanson, in answer to my question, you said there was no factual knowledge at the time you made the contact. My concern, and my question, is if you don't need to have any actual leak or press inquiry, doesn't that exception swallow the rule? Doesn't the rule become a nullity? Would you answer? Ms. HANSON. Sir Senator ROTH. If at any time a person thinks there may be a press inquiry, an exception can be made to the rule of confidentiality, doesn't that really destroy the rule of confidentiality? Ms. HANSON, I don't believe that two Executive Branch officials speaking with each other on a matter relating to possible press inquiries or other governmental-in another governmental function breaches the confidentiality. Senator ROTH. That's not my question. Ms. HANSON. I'm sorry, sir. Senator ROTH. My question was, doesn't--if your logic is pursued, and an exception to the rule of confidentiality can be made any time there is a suspicion or belief that there is going to be a press leak, doesn't that destroy the rule of confidentiality, for all practical purposes?
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:40:41) Ms. HANSON. As I stated, I think that two governmental officials in the Executive Branch talking to each other doesn't destroy the confidentiality. Senator ROTH. Let me point out what the RTC stated, in a writing response to questions, after the February 24, 1994, hearing: 170 The disclosure of any information concerning a criminal referral may serve to alert a suspect that an investigation may be pending, enable the suspect to conceal evidence, or dissipate the proceeds of the crime, fabricate evidence, or otherwise impede the investigation. Aren't these legitimate concerns? Ms. HANSON. Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more. That is why the employee, or the employees, at the RTC who leaked this information to the press, I believe, should be investigated Senator ROTH. Did you discuss with anyone the RTC policy and how it should be applied to the immediate case? Ms. HANSON. No, sir I didn't believe I needed to. Senator ROTH. YOU didn't think you needed to, but that was the basic policy of the agency responsible for administering the law-, Ms. HANSON. Sir, I understood that two Executive Branch offi- cials could speak with each other in pursuit of a proper governmental purpose. Senator ROTH. Under that interpretation, couldn't you discuss a' referral at any time? If the rule is that two Government officials can discuss a criminal referral, then the rule, again, becomes a nullify, doesn't it? Ms. HANSON. I believe in that case, one has to look at the purpose for having the discussion. If there is a proper governmental purpose, then I believe a discussion can be had. I know, and it's the policy of the RTC and the Treasury, that criminal referral information is sensitive, and must be handled with extreme care. Senator ROTH. Would you extend this privilege to anyone but the President? MS. HANSON. Excuse me? Senator ROTH. Let me put it this way-, Would anyone else, who might be subject to a press inquiry, be entitled to the same kind of information? Ms. HANSON. Sir, it would depend on the situation. Senator ROTH. But there are circumstances in which you would answer in the affirmative? Ms. HANSON. There are situations absolutely, where the need to know information in order to be able to deal with press inquiries would be-is a proper governmental purpose, just as this one was. Senator ROTH. Let me ask you this: Are you familiar with the guidelines established by Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. HANSON. I don't know which ones you're referring to, sir. Senator ROTH. The memorandum from the Presidential Counsel Nussbaum entitled, "Prohibition of White House Staff Contacts with Independent Regulatory Agencies." It was dated February 22) 1993. Are you familiar with that memorandum? Ms. HANSON. Yes, sir. I don't have a copy in front of me, but I'm, generally, familiar. Senator ROTH. That memorandum says: There is generally no justification for any White House involvement in particular adjudicative or rulemaking proceedings at any agency. Therefore, as a general rule, no member of the staff should contact any agency in regard to any adjudicative or rulemaking, matter pending before that agency. Are you familiar with that language? Ms. HANSON. I've heard that language, sir. Senator ROTH. Did that rule come up in discussions at any time, either in the Treasury or with the White House? 171 Ms. HANSON. In terms of my conversation with Mr. Nussbaum? Senator ROTH. That's correct. MS. HANSON. There was no White House involvement in any adjudicatory process. There was no White House involvement, in this process, at all. Senator ROTH. But we are talking about the RTC. They are the ones that are the adjudicative agency, are they not? Ms. HANSON. Perhaps I should have a copy of what you're reading from in front of me. The CHAIRMAN. Let's get one for you. We extended the time period, to make up for the time, and its expired. I want to try to continue on. I don't want to be arbitrary, in terms of Senator Roth getting an answer to his question, but if you're going to have to study the document-Senator Roth
Green Sea Turtle
(TAPE 1) Galapagos - green sea turtle swimming
Iguana
(TAPE 1) Land iguana shedding its skin in patches, yawning
Swallow Tail Gull
(TAPE 1) Swallow tail gull and chick looking for food
Sea Lion
(TAPE 1) Sea lion sleeping using a rock for a pillow Sea lion with its head underwater, blowing bubbles
Iguana
(TAPE 1) Land iguana shedding its skin in patches on santa fe
Opuntia cactus
(TAPE 1) Flowers on opuntia cactus and pads
Sea Lions
(TAPE 1) Sea lions sleeping on the beach Sea lions on the surf
Iguana
(TAPE 1) 09:37:41 Young land iguana
Opuntia cactus
(TAPE 1) Huge opuntia cactus
Lava Lizard
(TAPE 1) Male lava lizard
Mockingbird
(TAPE 1) Mockingbird preening
Tourists and ships on santa fe
(TAPE 1) Tourists and ships on santa fe
Caterpillars
(TAPE 1) Caterpillars
Sea Lion
(TAPE 1) 09:44:02 Big male sea lion 09:44:38 Sea lion close up 09:45:16 Sea lion scratches an itch 09:45:39 Herd of sea lions, 1 comes up on the beach 09:48:12 Big bull comes up on the beach to his harem 09:50:06 Sea lion, close 00:00:39 Young sea lion looking for his mother 00:03:00 Young sea lion coated with sand 00:06:18 Sea lion and tour boats 00:07:51 Big bull 00:10:13 Sea lion rubbing its eyes to chase away flies
Dwarf paintbrush
(TAPE 1) Dwarf paintbrush in alpine ecuador
Flowers
(TAPE 1) Flowers
amazon river
Tape below was taken in headwaters, amazon river and ecuador
Leafcutter Ants
Leaf cutter ants Leaf cutter ants
Tree Fruit
(TAPE 1) 00:14:57 Flowers
Shelf bracket fungi
(TAPE 1) Shelf bracket fungi, a jungle bird calls