August 3, 1994 - Part 1
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:00:09) The White House may need to know that the Secret Service is investigating a crime in which a visiting dignitary is involved. Or the ATF might have an arms export case involving high officials of this Government, or of a foreign country. Clearly, there is a legitimate need to discuss matters in the proper forums with the proper individuals, There must be a mechanism in which public officials can communicate with one another without fear that they are stepping over the line. We have seen how grey areas can be-where there is one set of rules at the RTC, another at Treasury. And we have seen how there sometimes is no bright, white line that gives public officials the guidance they need. I intend to work with the Attorney General or Inspector General, the Office of Government Ethics, and what ever this Committee might suggest insofar as remedies that would offer our employees better guidance. And it should be clear for our officials how to handle the issue of confidential information as it regards press inquiries. 9 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, two quick points in closing. First, I have been in public service for nearly 30 years. I have seen everything from McCarthy hearings to Watergate, IranContra, the Church Committee, all of it. What you have here is a unique confluence of circumstances that, when you strip away all the rhetoric, resulted in actions that broke no criminal law, did not violate the Ethics Rules, and did not in any way affect the Madison case. I think that when Congress concludes these hearings, Congress and Americans who have followed this matter will conclude the same. And finally, I am proud that throughout it all, the Treasury Department has continued to operate at 100 percent and done a good job. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, You mentioned, I think, a document along the way for inclusion in the record, and without objection, we will include it in the record. I want to start with the testimony before this Committee at the Oversight Hearing on February 24th. You mentioned today that at a certain point, you left that hearing, and I recall it clearly because you had another engagement and you asked to be excused. After you left, this exchange occurred with Mr. Altman that really has triggered not just these hearings, but also a complete effort by Mr. Fiske, who moved to subpoena a number of people and take them before the Grand Jury. So it was a very serious matter. We spent a long time yesterday discussing it, I think, in one way or another, every Member of this Committee found that testimony that day troubling to one degree or another. We spent a lot of time going over it. And because you were not here at the time, I think it is very important that you go over it, and perhaps you have done so. So my first question is, to you, have you had a chance to review the testimony that has kicked this off and the completeness or lack of completeness of Mr. Altman's answers that day? Secretary BENTSEN. Yes, I have. The CHAIRMAN. And do you have a comment about it or reaction to it? Secretary BENTSEN. Well that is the first I had heard of such a meeting, and frankly, it concerned me. And then very shortly thereafter, I read, I guess it was probably March 3rd, about a couple of additional meetings. And that is when I immediately called for a full investigation by the Off-ice of Government Ethics to get to the bottom of it and see what had happened. The CHAIRMAN. I think, as we listened yesterday, and I think if you, this went on until 2:00 in the morning, so I do not expect that you necessarily saw it, and there certainly is not a transcript available yet to read. But in the course of the hours of discussion with Mr. Altman, I think it is fair to say that he acknowledged that his answers, in many cases, were not as complete as they should have been, or that there was a serious difference of interpretation as to what an in 10 tended question meant and the way he chose to receive the question and respond to it. Secretary BENTSEN. That is apparently the case. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a problem we cannot have again from anybody in the Treasury Department, whether it is Mr. Altman, Mr. Steiner, or anybody else that comes before this Committee. I frankly do not think there was an acceptable excuse for it having happened on the 24th. We have hashed that out here last night. And every Senator and the public can make their own judgments. But I must just tell you very directly, and I want to say it publicly, and not just say it to you in a private way.