August 1, 1994 - Part 6
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?