August 2, 1994 - Part 11
August 2, 1994 - Part 11
(00:11:28) Hearing resumes: The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume. Senator Mack of Florida. Senator MACK. Thank you Mr Chairman. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be possible to do--since most Members said 5 minutes, whether we could go to 5 minute rounds recognizing that Senator Gramm, of course, as more--maybe, he could do 10 minutes when be gets his round. Senator MACK. I indicated I didn't think I would go over 5 but I do want to have the opportunity to go through with my questions. Senator SARBANES. I'll withdraw then. 528 The CHAIRMAN. We'll stick with the 10-minute rounds and if you don't need that long, you can just yield the time back. Very good Senator Mack. Senator MACK. Just before the break, Senator Kerry said kind of toward the end of his questions, Mr. Altman, you are not answering my question. And frankly, that's been a constant refrain from both sides during this hearing. My impression is that you have no interest in finding the truth or providing it to the Committee. I say that for many reasons, the latest of which is the conversation you had with Mr. Podesta on March 1, 1994. Mr. Podesta called you about a week after your testimony on February 24 and raised Significant concerns about the accuracy of your testimony. There were several areas he thou ght you should correct. I'm going to focus on the omission of the fall meetings between White House Counsel staff and Treasury officials. When Mr. Podesta brought up those meetings to you, you told him you didn't even want to hear about it. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, that's not what I said. Senator MACK. I'll give you an opportunity to respond. I'm going to read out of the transcript here. Now a whole group of attorneys down at the White House Counsel's Office thought you should correct the record and you didn't even want to hear about it. That's certainly the impression that we drew. Mr. ALTMAN. That's not what I said, Senator. Senator MACK. Members of the White House Counsel's Office undertook a very serious analysis of the accuracy of your testimony. Question: What was the conclusion of that serious analysis? Answer: The conclusion of the analysis was that in whatever capacity Ms. Hanson, or Mr. DeVore, or Mr. Steiner were over there, the Committee needed to be aware of these contacts. Question: The testimony? Answer., We thought this was very serious. Question: The testimony needed to be supplemented in some way? Answer: Yes. Question: What did Mr. Altman say on March I when you either read or paraphrased that second question? Answer: From February 24? (And he's referring there to Senator Bond's questions about contacts.) He said that-he again said it was an accurate statement. I said to him that there may be information that he would have to acquire to supplement this answer. He said I don't know whether we should be even having this conversation or something to that effect. Then I said well, you may have a duty to supplement your testimony from the perspective of an agency witness. He, I think at that point, did not want me to give him specific information about contacts that I was aware of because I think he was at the point just not sure about whether he should be learning additional facts subsequent to the hearings. The next day you sent this Committee your first of what turned out to be 4 letters to correct the record. in that letter, you continued to be, again in, my opinion, evasive as you were in the February 24 hearing, and I'm going to read from that letter. It is basically a three-paragraph letter, third paragraph: But I have learned today of two conversations which did take place between Treasury staff and White House personnel on this matter. My information is that both related to handling of press inquiries.