(11:40:31) But I do not think the lines are clear enough on that. And I think the Office of Government Ethics makes a good point on that, and I think we ought to do a better job in defining that. And I think that is true not just for the law enforcement at Treasury, but also for every other Department. Senator KE RRY. The reason I ask it, Mr. Secretary is that at a later page of the report, page 10, it says, as a final note on the appearance issue, we should add that we recognize that having a public purpose for a disclosure does not preclude an employee from also having, as a purpose, the furtherance of a private interest. And as to Ms. Hanson, they found that she did not do anything with respect to a private interest. 34 But they also say in this report that it is unclear from the report what Mr. Altman's role in. the disclosure of September 29th may have been. And here we go to his memory about Ms. Hanson 7 and they specifically say that Ms. Hanson's memorandum-excuse me--we feel there is insufficient information to enable us to provide you with any further analysis of Mr. Altman's participation in this disclosure. Now that is why a very essential question for us here is Mr. Altman's relationship to Ms. Hanson, and Ms. Hanson's visit to the White House. And I just want to come back to it for a moment, if I can, so that we can analyze this other part of the report. You have talked earlier in your testimony about your office and the way you ran it. I recollect that you run a very tight ship, and I respect that. I think we all do. It is hard for me to imagine that your lawyer, the Counsel to the Treasury, would spontaneously contact the White House without some authorization from somebody or some notice to somebody, that she would just take it upon herself to go to the White House with a very unusual happening, a reference of a criminal referral mentioning the name of the President or Mrs. Clinton as a possible witness. I want to emphasize that. The word keeps getting thrown around here, criminal referral, Witness. And most Americans are not drawing that distinction. Can you help us with that, because we have really got to make some choice up here. Would she have gone, I mean, was she authorized, I do not want to ask your opinion, but was she authorized to contact the White House on her own in that kind of a situation? Secretary BENTSEN. Let me state that I have a better understanding of it just from what I have heard here this morning, because my understanding, I believe as Senator Dodd testified, that she went over for some other reason. And she was at the White House, and the occasion came up where she decided she could divulge that. Now that is what I was told. I did not know that before, and that makes it more easily understood. Senator KERRY. The evidence before the Committee, Mr. Secretary, is that she was directed. Well, there is conflicting evidence, but several people have indicated she was directed to call. She telephoned. The telephone logs indeed show that there was a call. They did not connect. And then she happened to be there a subsequent day and took advantage of that to relay the information she had intended to relay in the telephone call. But that she states she was doing this upon the specific instruction of Mr. Altman. Now the Committee's got to wrestle with this question. Would the lawyer for the Treasury have taken upon herself, this independent, or was she authorized to do this, or was this an unauthorized contact? Secretary BENTSEN. Let me say, Senator, that top officials in Treasury were often, often at the White House working with staff 35 at the White House and developed a relationship there. That it was not unusual for them to be there. I do not know any prohibition that would have been in place for her not to have done that. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry, if you want to pursue that, 1 will yield you 2 minutes off my next round. Senator D'Amato's in agreement with doing that if you want to take a couple of minutes to finish this line of discussion.