August 3, 1994 - Part 7
August 3, 1994 - Part 7
(18:05:16) Senator ROTH. Well, I have to say that I am somewhat surprised at your answer. Presumably, this was issued on February 22, 1993 to govern the kind of contacts that could be made by White House staff. And yet you're telling me that as one of the experts on ethics, you're not that familiar with this particular memorandum. Ms. NOLAN. Senator, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to suggest that. What I meant to say was that I haven't looked at what the particular matter was, the Madison Guaranty matter, to state whether it would fall within the category of defined matters subject to the Senator ROTH. Let me ask you this, if I may. Would not a criminal referral constitute an adjudicative matter in your judgment? Ms. NOLAN. Yes, it would. Senator ROTH. And since we are talking about the Madison Guaranty criminal referrals, they would constitute, if I follow your answer, an adjudicative matter pending before an agency, either RTC or Justice Department; is that correct? Ms. NOLAN. I'm sorry, Senator. Could you repeat that? Senator ROTH. Well, you answered me that criminal referrals were an adjudicative matter, so what I am asking is aren't the Madison Guaranty criminal referrals an adjudicative matter? Ms. NOLAN. I believe-I can only say, Senator, that I believe it would be, but I am not familiar enough with the matter to give you a specific answer. Senator ROTH. But you would answer in the affirmative, as far as a criminal referral being an adjudicative matter? Ms. NOLAN. Yes, sir. Senator ROTH. Now, section A-1 of the memorandum includes two lists of Government agencies. The first group of independent agencies, and I quote, "should not be contracted by White House 129 staff' unless, prior clearance is received from the White House Counsel's Office. The second group of agencies should not be contacted without prior clearance by the White House Counsel on matters regarding the exercise of their "regulatory or adjudicative functions." Is that correct? Ms. NOLAN. Should not be contacted without the permission of the Counsel's Office? Senator ROTH. Yes. Ms. NOLAN. Correct. Senator ROTH. Let me ask you this, Ms. Nolan. While the RTC is not included on either list, the memorandum goes on to state, and I am quoting "the list is merely illustrative. Many bureaus and divisions of agencies have authority to issue binding regulations or to decide specific claims and the same rules on prior clearance apply for those entities as well." And moreover, subsection A-2 states that the ban on agency contacts extends to "components of departments and agencies with authority to investigate charges of misconduct." Now, Ms. Nolan, would speciflic investigative matters pending before the RTC, such as Madison Guaranty, be included in the ban on direct contact by White House personnel under the Nussbaum memorandum? Ms. NOLAN. Senator, I'm not sure. If I were asked that question, I would have to look at exactly what the Resolution Trust Corporation's charter is and whether it is an independent investigative agency or not. senator ROTH. Let me go back and ask does RTC, in your judgment, exercise an adjudicative function? Ms. NOLAN. Senator, I'm sorry. You're asking me to answer a question I haven't looked at. I have stayed out of the review of these matters, the contacts, the Treasury-White House contacts. I have stayed out of the review of that matter, and I have not looked at this particular question.