August 3, 1994 - Part 2
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."