August 2, 1994 - Part 3
August 2, 1994 - Part 3
(12:35:21) The CHAIRMAN. I want to restore your time, Senator Boxer. Senator BOXER. Thank you. A lot of these phrases in here are te dramatic. As I went through them before, " powerless," "fate- "disaster unfold," "tortured date." You're using language here to indicate your feelings about it, and I respect the fact that you have a lot of feelings because you're not old like we are and you're not numb. And I would repeat, as far as I understand, in your testimony, you re not backing away from the basic facts that you yourself knew firsthand. Mr. STEINER. That's correct, Senator. Senator BOXER. Am I correct? Mr. STEINER. You are. 360 senator BOXER. I thought I was correct on that point. I would like to ask a question to our ethics expert, Mr. Foreman. Would it not be better when a matter comes up that deals with the Presidency and it's very important, and none of us should be holier than thou and say it wouldn't matter to us if we work for the President, be it George Bush, or Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton, or anyone else that we wouldn't care about it. Wouldn't it have been better if you, as an ethics officer, had said, since this happened before the President was President, I think it's OK to make one contact, perhaps, to Mr. Nussbaum. I'm not even sure that I think that's correct, but it should have gone straight from there to the President's private counsel, private attorney who would make the comments necessary. Did you ever think about that, that since this was something that happened before the President was President, that all such questions would go not for "no comment" answers, as was indicated earlier because I agree with my colleague, Senator Sasser, and I agree with Mr. Devore, when you say "no comment," that's the worst thing you can say to the press because they'll make a mountain out of a molehill if you say "no comment." But if you refer it to a private attorney who can then say the fact that yes, this matter is proceeding in order, et cetera, and my client did nothing that he or she is ashamed of or whatever. Did you ever think about that notion, of taking this to a private counsel since it was really a private matter that occurred before the President was President? Mr. FOREMAN. Senator, that's a very thoughtful option. As I said, I wasn't aware of the contacts when they occurred last fall. Senator BOXER. But you would consider now, in light of this, that that might be some way to proceed where it is a matter that happened prior to the President becoming President, that it would be better perhaps, or you'll think about it as ethically sounder to refer all of these questions to private counsel? Mr. FOREMAN. That's a very thoughtful option, as I've said, and it makes sense. Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Roth. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR. Senator ROTH. Mr. Foreman, as stated in the RTC's written response to Banking Committee questions for the February 24, 1994 hearing, and I quote: It is the policy of RTC not to disclose criminal referrals or information about their preparation on an institution-specific basis. Mr. Foreman, while you are the Designated Agency Ethics Officer of the Treasury Department and not of the RTC, are you aware of the RTC's policy regarding the confidentiality of criminal referrals. Mr. FOREMAN. Senator, I saw that policy for the first time, to the best of my recollection, in March of this year. Senator ROTH. So you were not aware of it on February 24? Mr. FOREMAN. That's exactly correct, Senator. 361 Senator ROTH, Let me ask you this: As the Treasury's Ethics Officer, wouldn't it be proper procedure for any Treasury official to consult with you to obtain ethical clearance prior to providing confidential information to the White House even if that information comes from the RTC since the Treasury official would be disclosing confidential information? Mr. FOREMAN. Senator, that's certainly something that could be done. There's no requirement that every time some activity hap pens, that someone checks with an ethics lawyer before they do it. Senator ROTH. Wouldn't it be the appropriate procedure if it involves confidential information? Mr. FOREMAN. It would have been a good idea, perhaps, to do so, but there's nothing that requires that it be done in every situation.