Advanced Search
Austria and Tyrol - misc. gardens, architecture, dance, street parade scenes
Austria - winter - making snow boots
August 3, 1994 - Part 2
(11:15:19) OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR MACK Senator MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome, Mr. Secretary. Secretary BENTSEN. Thank you, Senator. Senator MACK. I want to begin by focusing on something that struck me the other day when we were discussing some matters with Mr. Roelle. One of the things that came up was that even at that time, which is just a couple of days ago, he would not share with the Committee, or he would not turn over to the Committee, the cover page of the 9 referrals. He felt that it was very important, from the RTC's perspective, and from his perspective, that the referrals that remain a confidential matter that should not be shared with anyone. And he has been pretty clear about that all the way through his testimony, from the 1st time I asked him questions about calling Mr. Altman back in September. He feels very, very strongly that this is not information that should be shared. But yet, either Mr. Altman or Ms. Hanson, or a combination of the two, shared this information with the White House, through Mr. Nussbaum. I am just curious as to how you think. it should have been handled. I mean, I heard someone say the other day, you know I am not sure I know all these rules about ethics, but I sure know right from wrong, I would like to have your sense about what has happened, the sharing of these referrals with the White House back in September. Secretary BENTSEN. I think what you have, Senator, in this, you do not have as clear guidance as you should have, particularly if You are talking about nonpublic information, and that is what you are speaking of. 26 I know there are instances where the White House should know and a law enforcement agency, as we have in Treasury, or some of these other departments have, really ought to be able to communicate with the White House. But there is no clear line there. I can think of-I am not sure that you were here at that point, Senator, but I can think of situations where the White House should know. I think about the possibility of some foreign dignitary that gets involved in a dope Senator MACK. I was here when you made that comment. In fact, that is what triggered the question. Secretary BENTSEN. OK. Senator MACK. And let me again maybe just add a couple of more points to it. I do not have any disagreement with that. But I think that what is troubling me, is again, should the White House have knowledge that there may be something coming up that they are going to have to deal with? I mean, for example, would it have been OK for them to have learned that it appears that there will be some referrals that will go to Justice, but not the details of those referrals? I think, you know again Secretary BENTSEN. Yes, I think there are cases where they should have the details of those referrals. Senator MACK. Before or after it becomes public knowledge? Secretary BENTSEN. Before it becomes public knowledge. Senator MACK. Before? Secretary BENTSEN. Let me give you an example. Let's suppose that you have someone, some foreign dignitary that is involved in dope running, and that is not publicly known. Senator MACK. Mr. Secretary, I am really trying to get you to respond, though, to this, the area of these 9 criminal referrals, not Secretary BENTSEN. Oh. I do not know the details of those 9 criminal referrals. Senator MACK. No. The point is should the details of the 9 criminal referrals been made available to the White House before they were public knowledge? Secretary BENTSEN. I do not think that they have clear guidance on that. And I think that is part of the problem. Senator MACK. Well then give me your instincts. I mean, what we are talking about is just kind of basic Secretary BENTSEN. I do not want to deal in instincts. I think you try to understand the guidelines and respond to those. But the problem, there is not a clear, bright line, and that has to be done. And that is where I want your Counsel of this Committee, and I want that of the Attorney General and the Office of Government Ethics. Senator MACK, Let me move on then to another point, because I think it might lead into that. The Office of Government Ethics' report does not address all the conflicts between Mr. Altman's testimony and those of the White House and Treasury officials. And I believe, in a sense, it throws it back into your lap. 27 In part of the analysis, it says, on the basis of our review, we believe that "you might reasonably conclude that the conduct detailed in the report of the officials presently employed by the Department of the Treasury did not violate any standards of conduct, of ethical conduct for employees of the Executive Branch. However, many of the contacts detailed in the report are troubling."
Flowers
Heliconia on table
Flowers
Hanging HeliconiaLobster Claw
Flowers
Morning Glory **
Flowers
Lantana and golden shower
Flowers
Lantana
Flowers
Lantana & Ocean ***on tree in forest
Flowers
Wild Passion FlowerBud and Method of suspension
Flowers
Passion flower and budding ***
Flowers
HydrangeaRhododendronOleander
Flowers
Tritonia
Flowers
Elephant Ears
Flower: Bird Of Paradise
More Poinsettia ***
Flowers: Bird Of Paradise
Poinsettia
Flowers: Bird Of Paradise
Hawaii Flowers
Flowers: Bird Of Paradise
King Street & Buildings
Flowers: Bird Of Paradise
Hilo Hotel
Flowers: Bird Of Paradise
Hana Coast ***with Hala tree
Flowers: Bird Of Paradise
Castle & ...Bishops
Flower: Bird Of Paradise
Bush and BlossomBougainvillea
August 3, 1994 - Part 2
(11:20:25) And I wonder if you would just share with us how you are going to follow this up? What are you going to do about this? Secretary BENTSEN, Well I think they are right on that. And I think there are things that we have to do. And I assume full responsibility as Secretary of the Treasury. I think, to have clear, distinct understanding when a person is wearing two hats, one is in this instance, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, and on the other hand, Chief Executive for the Resolution Trust, and you have different sets of rules and regulations in the two. Senator MACK. What would the rules of the Treasury have been under this circumstance? Secretary BENTSEN, Well you get into quite a plethora of rules insofar as responsibilities in the Treasury. I do not think I can give you the detail of it. I would be delighted to respond to it subsequently in the record, if you would like. Senator MACK. I think it would be helpful if Secretary BENTSEN. I would be happy to. Senator MACK [continuing]. If we could have some identification of what the rules of the Treasury would have provided with respect to this issue. Secretary BENTSEN. I would be happy to. The rules on when Treasury officials can discuss or confirm the details of a criminal referral are far from clear. That is why I have asked the Justice Department, OGE, and Treasury's own Inspector General to work with the Department in developing guidelines. Senator MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Shelby. Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Bentsen, Senator Bentsen, I will always call him that, I guess. Mr. Secretary, we are glad to have you over here with us again. I would like to go back into a couple of things that have been disturbing to me and I think some others on the Committee. Let's talk about, for a minute, and see if I understand, that the Office of Inspector General's report here, this is the Inspector General of the Department of Treasury, is that correct? Secretary BENTSEN. That is correct. Senator SHELBY. This investigation I believe at your request or your Secretary BENTSEN. For the Office of Government Ethics, that was my request, and then, but they have no investigative Senator SHELBY. Let's go over it again. Secretary BENTSEN. But lot me make the point and answer your question. 28 But they have no investigative powers, so they called on the Inspector General for that purpose. Senator SHELBY. OK. In other words, the Inspector General was doing the investigation, part of it? You said he had to investigate Secretary BENTSEN. Doing the investigation and, based on that, the Office of Government Ethics. But the Office of Government Ethics points out those areas that they think are important in arriving at a judgment, and directs the IG. Senator SHELBY. Let me go over the sequence of events again briefly with you here. When was this report finished and disseminated to the public? Secretary BENTSEN. Well I think it was this-I do not have the exact date, but it has been in the very last few days. And what I did with that was to release it to the public, and I believe I am correct on this, and as I understand it, the White House came over and picked up a copy at that press conference. Senator SHELBY. Did you release some of the White House before you released it to the public? Secretary BENTSEN. I released to the White House sworn depositions that had been requested by Mr. Cutler, and Mr. Cutler had the authority to come over and interview the witnesses, but yet a time constraint here in trying to get ready to testify before the Congress. And the IG had felt that the White House had been very cooperative in responding to their deposing of witnesses there, and in turn, they felt that they should cooperate to give Mr. Cutler the kind of information he needed to prepare. Now I put a safeguard on that. Senator SHELBY. What was the safeguard? Secretary BENTSEN. As I said, first, I think Mr. Cutler is an excellent attorney, a man of integrity, who has an understanding of ethics and has served, with distinction, two Presidents, and I said, I want these depositions limited to your staff and not shared with the witnesses until this situation is further developed, and the reports, all of the reports are completed. Senator SHELBY. Were these depositions shared with Mr. Altman? Secretary BENTSEN. They were not shared with him until after, my understanding, all of the witnesses had been deposed.
August 3, 1994 - Part 2
(11:25:26) Senator SHELBY. But they were shared prior to his testimony yesterday, were they not? Secretary BENTSEN. Well I would assume so. Senator SHELBY. OK. Secretary BENTSEN. The point is, I have forgotten your experience as a trial attorney, if you were. I have never been, but my understanding is that this is comparable to a trial. And my understanding is these depositions are not something that are then held in secret but they are shared. Senator SHELBY, Swapped. Secretary BENTSEN. And that is not something like sprung on them as a surprise. Gotcha, for example. Let me further state that this Committee asked me to share with them the deposing of our witnesses and that these sworn depositions then come back to this Committee. 29 I do not think the law requires that of me. But I did that because I want to comply and I want to cooperate with this Committee. And as I understand it, this Committee still has those and has them under lock and key. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Secretary, do you recall when Mr. Cutler requested these depositions? Secretary BENTSEN. No, I do not recall. I would be happy to get you the date. Senator SHELBY. Would you furnish that for the record? Secretary BENTSEN. I would be happy to. Senator SHELBY. I want to now go to the diary or parts of the diary of Mr. Steiner, who is your Chief of Staff, and get back into something that is been asked many times, and that is the recusal of Roger Altman. Did you ever recommend to Roger Altman that he should recuse himself? Secretary BENTSEN. I do not recall that I did, but I must tell you, Senator, I was very sympathetic to him, because I thought he was in a tough spot, and he well might have interpreted that. I do know that I emphasized over and over that the decision had to be his, that he knew the facts, that I did not. Senator SHELBY. Was he in a tough spot because of the wearing of two hats? I mean, it was inevitable? Secretary BENTSEN. What? Senator SHELBY. Was he in a tough spot because of the wearing of two hats, or was he in a tough spot because of the wearing of two hats plus the connections to the White House? Secretary BENTSEN. Well I think that he was in a tough spot because the question, he was being charged by some Members of Congress, of having a conflict there that had to be resolved. On the other hand, there was a decision to be made, and whether or not to recuse himself was, from his standpoint, a difficult call. I must say that when he did recuse himself, I was quite relieved, and I might say further that if I had known all the facts that I now hear, I would have certainly recused myself. Senator SHELBY. Secretary Bentsen, did you ever have a conversation that you recall in bits or pieces or in whole, where Mr. Altman talked with you about the problem of recusal? Secretary BENTSEN. Oh, yes. Senator SHELBY. He talked with you about it? Secretary BENTSEN. Yes, he did. Senator SHELBY. But you do not recall whether you recommended at that time that he recuse Secretary BENTSEN, I do not recall recommending him to do it. But once again, I very much sympathized with his problem, and he might have interpreted it that way. Senator SHELBY. Could you have recommended it to him and not recalled today? Secretary BENTSEN. I do not have total recall, and I do not really know anyone that does. Senator SHELBY. So the answer is, you do not know whether you recommended that he recuse himself or not? Secretary BENTSEN. I told you I do riot recall that. 30 Senator SHELBY. You just remembered a conversation regarding this? Secretary BENTSEN. Yes. Senator SHELBY. Are you familiar- The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shelby, excuse me, your time has run, and I do not want to cut you off. Senator SHELBY. I am sorry. I did not know my time was up. The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me. Senator Faircloth. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR FAIRCLOTH Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield one minute of my time to Senator Mack, and then I have some brief questions. Senator MACK. Mr. Secretary, I kind of diverted you off into another direction after I asked you a question, and it had to do with, what are you going to do as an administrative matter to resolve the conflicts between Mr. Altman's testimony and that of many other officials. There are lots of people who are saying different things, which you are well aware of, and I was interested in how are you going to proceed with that as an administrative matter in solving those problems?