August 1, 1994 - Part 9
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(23:10:40) Ms. HANSON. I can't say what was in Mr. Altman's mind, at that time, about that letter. I have testified as to how I viewed the letter and what I understood the letter to be. Senator GRAMM. In your mind, because you were going to do another letter later, you thought that this was an adequate, acceptable response to give? Ms. HANSON. With respect to putting the Committee on notice of the two fall meetings-but, again, sir, it was not intended to fully answer +I%,- question or to be a complete supplement, by any means, to the transcript. Senator GRAmm. Maam, let me just read you what this says. I don't understand this whole! logic. Let me just read you this, give you the answer, and then, pose a couple of quick questions. With regard to the second paragraph of the letter, the situation is that you've been asked, "Were there any other communications between the RTC and the White House?" and that Mr. Altman says, in the letter in which he had answered, "Not to my knowledge." Forget the fact that we know-and I could give you 20 or more examples where-that's not true. Just forget that. Then, this letter comes down and says, "I have learned, today, of two conversations which did take place between Treasury staff and White House personnel on this matter. Ms. Hanson, you have answered questions, in the last hour, in which you said that you, not just anybody that worked for the Treasury, but you, had conversations with the White House on February 3, 1994, 49 1994, February 8, 1994, and two conversations with two different people on February 23, 1994. In fact I three different people on February 23, 1994, one day before the testimony. When you read this letter, when you had, personally, had one, two, three, four, five, six communications yourself , as a member of the Treasury Department, didn't you think about it and say "Mr. Altman, you write here that you said at the Committee you had no knowledge of any communications between Treasury staff and the White House, but that you have learned about two"? Did you think about saying, 'Mr. Altman I have, personally, myself, had a mini-mum of six communications, and three of them were the day before you testified"? I don't understand why-when you read this letter, why you didn't say to him, "Mr. Altman, this is clearly not true." Ms. HANSON. This letter was intended to respond to Senator Bond's question that asked how the White House was notified of the referrals, because the first conversation that he refers to, of the two conversations, was my conversation with Mr. Nussbaum. This was not intended to answer-in fact, at the time this letter was written, I hadn't even-the only questions that I had before me 195 were the two questions of Senator Bond as to how the White House had been notified. Senator GRAMM. To try to save time, and not to be impolite, when Senator Bond asked him, at the hearing, whether any other conversations had taken place, he answers, "Not to my knowledge." Then, he writes in this letter that he's learned, today, of two conversations. My point is, you yourself, by testimony you've given today, have told us that you were involved in one, two, three, four, five, six conversations, three of them the day before he testified. How could you not say, "Mr. Altman, this letter is verifiably false"'? I can't conceive-it's almost as if,. Ms. Hanson, you can compartmentalize, in your mind, this question, and limit it down to just what Mr. Altman wants to say, and that he is saying he is giving a limited response when he says he would appreciate the ability, through this letter, to amend the record.