August 1, 1994 - Part 6
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:05:12) Ms. HANSON. I spoke with the Deputy General Counsel, who is the Treasury designated agency ethics officer for his Senator SHELBY. What advice did you get, if any? Ms. HANsON. He said he didn't have an objection to the meeting. Senator SHELBY. No objection to the meeting. OK I believe you were asked earlier about when Mr. Altman testified before this same Banking Committee back in February-I forget the exact date--and you were in the audience. You were Counsel and seated right behind him, if I recall. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. I recall you using the phrase, and I quote, you thought that it "would require further elaboration" on some of his answers. Are those your words? Ms. HANSON. Those are my words. Senator SHELBY. Did you ever, while he was testifying, hand him a note or something to refresh his recollection about these questions that were being asked of him? Ms. HANSON. I recall handing him notes from time to time. Senator SHELBY. Do you recall if these were to correct some of his answers, and if he ignored the notes, or what? Ms. HANSON. I don't recall, sir. I recall that Ms. Kulka and I drafted a response to a question we anticipated during the hearing and gave it to him for him to look over, but I don't recall exactly what else. Senator SHELBY. What did he do with it, if anything? Ms. HANSON. He kept that one to use for an answer. It was a question that we didn't have a specific answer to, but drafted one during the course of the bearing. I passed him some other notes as well. don't recall what they were. 117 Senator SHELBY. Were some of those notes, and this will be-my time is up, but my last part of this suggestion--were some of the notes that you all would pass to him then, would they be to help him further elaborate on his answers, like we all do? Ms. HANsON. I don't recall that any-tbat there were any notes of that type. Senator SHELBY. OK My time is up. The CHAIRMAN. I want to yield to Senator Mack, who is going to continue on their side. I've spoken to Senator DAMATO. an I want to just take a minute myself, I'll elaborate on this more at a later point. I think for your reference, and the reference of any other person who comes before a Senate or House Committee in a situation such as the meeting we're referring to, if information is asked for by a Senator-let's keep it on the Senate side-and an incomplete answer is given, to get the information later is not the same thing as giving a full and responsive answer at the time, particularly if there are follow-up questions. If there is a pattern of questions that make it clear that Senators are trying to understand something, and there are incomplete answers one after the other, if you're there in the room and possess the knowledge, you should not allow that to go on. I think you have some obligation, you and anybody else in that situation, to respond in real time. That's why we have hearings. Yes, you put stuff in the record that you may not have the information on at the time. If you've got to go find something to put it in the record, that's one thing. If you are sitting there and you have the information and it's being withheld, that's another. That, in my view, is not proper, Whether you're the person doing the testifying or somebody you directly report to is sitting there doing the testifying and you or they are giving answers, not once, but more than once, that are incomplete and you recognize them to be incomplete I think there is an obligation to respond in real time. If you can write a note, as you say you just did with Ms. Kulka, on something else, you can certainly write a note in that area-and I say that not only to you, but everybody else who might be in an equivalent situation. A later response down the line, for the record, is not the same thing as a true and accurate response in real time. Do you understand what I'm saying? Ms. HANsON. I do understand what you're saying, sir. If I might, as I stated, Mr. Altman was testifying. He had questions and answers in front of him, and I had every reason to believe that he 'was testifying"-he was making decisions as he testified. The issues before us now have assumed much more importance and significance than they had at that particular time. As I stated, I expectfully expected that we would respond in an orderly way, and would respond fully and completely to every question. There was no intention on my_part, sir, not to do that. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, could I have 10 seconds on this follow-up because it relates? The CHAIRMAN. Of course. Senator SHELBY. Ms. Hanson, you say that Mr. Altman had the questions and answers before him. Were these a lot of the quesitons that were anticipated, like in the preparation for the overought hearing, and some of the answers that you all had prepared 118 and that he bad prepared himself to answer accordingly? Is that what you were referring to?