August 3, 1994 - Part 1
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:05:33) Yesterday, your Chief of Staff was here, Mr. Steiner. He was here because he is a relevant witness under the inquiry we have been required to do here. I am sure you are familiar with the diary entries that he prepared and which were the subject of our discussion yesterday. I assume that he is Chief of Staff because he enjoys your full confidence. Would that be fair for me to assume? Secretary BENTSEN. That is right. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. I asked this morning what he is paid for doing that job. His salary, I am told, give or take a few dollars, is $96,830.00 a year? Secretary BENTSEN. That is very close to mine. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is a good high salary and it is a lot more than most people in the country earn, and he earns that amount of money because it is a very important position. Being Chief of Staff to you of this major department is not an insignificant job, as you know best. Yesterday, when we questioned him about his diary entries, which are obviously embarrassing to him, we understand that, we have got sympathy for him as a result of that, but this inquiry goes way beyond that. It goes to the question of the accuracy of events at the time, and whether testimony we were given was full and complete. That same standard applies now whether testimony we receive from him yesterday, or any other witness, is full and complete. At one point, yesterday, Senator Sarbanes importantly and skillfully had to take a question that he had posed to Mr. Steiner, which Mr. Steiner answered in a very, I thought, oblique and less than complete and candid way, and Senator Sarbanes had to take and shave down the conditions that were being put in Mr. Steiner's answer. After he had done so on at least two occasions, the answer turned, in effect, from a yes to a no. I mean, it completely changed the answer that was being given. I came away from it with the feeling that it reminded me too much of what I think happened here on February 24th in terms of there being less than a full, direct, blunt, candid answer. I realize that there are a lot of reasons why that could be difficult to do in this setting, but that does not justify it, and espe- 11 cially for any high ranking official, whatever their age, who carries the kind of responsibilities that people carry. I say it because I just cite that as an example, not to zero in on him per se, but to cite that as an example that is as recent as yesterday, that I would like to have an assurance that in the future, and I think the only person that can give that signal and have it really resonate is you, not us, that any other Treasury official that comes before this Committee, either now or in the future, when they are asked direct questions, give direct, full, complete answers right then on the spot. It has always been my experience that that has been your standard. I have never seen you operate any other way. I would like an assurance that that is going to be a clear signal that anybody that comes in here representing the Department in the future will also follow. Secretary BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, that certainly is my intention and certainly my direction to anyone representing Treasury. I might tell you what our own counsel told me insofar as answers. I said, do you have any suggestions? And he said, yes. Speak with candor, and clarity, and do not guess. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator DAmato. Senator D'AMATO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I note, looking at the Inspector General's report, that it did not address the issue of whether or not Mr. Altman was fully candid with the Congress. Yesterday, it emerged that at least 6 witnesses who have either testified or have given depositions have contradicted Mr. Altman on key facts, Mr. Altman indicates, himself, that he was not fully forthcoming as it relates to the testimony he gave on the 24th.