August 1, 1994 - Part 6
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?