August 2, 1994 - Part 4
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(11:35:59) So as I said last evening, there are a series of issues. A new one has been introduced, in a sense, that was not part of the Senate resolution that deals with the testimony of Mr. Altman before this Committee on February 24. That's an issue as it relates to the others, but has become more of a central question here as to the veracity. That's an issue we've addressed already and will address again with Mr. Altman this afternoon. I have grave concerns, I would say, Mr. Chairman, about that, as others in this Committee have expressed last evening and again today. The second set of issues, in my view deals with the whole issue of how Mr. Altman got this job, the statutory authority that creates the kind of environment that brought us to this hearing. We have a vacancy and then ask someone to carry on two full-time jobs and to separate their functions in the middle of a case that comes to it, that affects the very institution for which they work. So you're inviting this kind of difficulty. That's the second set of issues. The third set of issues has to do with the context. They go into whether or not anyone involved at the Treasury or the White House tried to influence these criminal referrals and disrupt a process that would otherwise lead to a successful prosecution of those who were identified. That to me is the most serious of all the questions we have raised. That's the heart and meat, it seems to me, of the issues we have before us. Again, I'm listening to the debate about words and diaries and impressions and so forth, and they have some meaning, but I want us to get back to the central question here of whether or not anything was done that violated the Office of Government Ethics, anything improper done here. I would argue, to some extent, that the fact that there was a debate about recusal indicates a certain sensitivity to the issue that is not always evident in this town. Mr. 392 Altman or someone else may have just decided on their own that they were going to stay with the case no matter what anybody said. The fact that he was raising the issue and discussing it, and whether he should, ought not to be seen necessarily as an indictment of somebody. it can be construed as showing some degree of sensitivity. I would point out, Mr. Foreman, that you mentioned at the opening of your testimony that your first function that you were required to perform in the Department of the Treasury was a direction from Secretary Bentsen to instruct all the employees in that office as to what their obligations were under the Code of Ethics; is that not correct? Mr. FOREMAN. Yes, Senator. Senator DODD. That was on January 21, 1993? Mr. FOREMAN. Absolutely, sir. Senator DODD. That was the first day this Administration took office. Mr. FOREMAN. The first hour of the morning, sir. Senator DODD. I think that says something. It ought not to be just swept by. You're talking about an overall demeanor and attitude here about these issues. Now, again, in my view there were far too many meetings and there were far too many people involved and the language gets too cute for my taste quite frankly. But on the basic issue of whether or not there is a pattern here of unethical behavior or, in fact, illegal behavior, I'm waiting to see more evidence. Mr. Foreman, let me raise a particular issue with you, because the allegation has been made that any contact having to do with a press inquiry, the threshold question to some Members of this Committee is wrong. Now, I'm referring here to page 8 of the Office of Government Ethics Report and specifically to paragraph 3. It says, "the question of whether Ms. Hanson,", talking about Ms. Hanson in this case, -disclosure served an official interest raises a unique issue about the nature of the Office of the President, matters that would be of only personal significance for other Executive Branch offices may take on official significance when the President of the United States is involved." I wonder if you might expand on that notion. Someone earlier raised the question of whether or not if this had happened in the Department of Commerce, whether or not the same standards would apply. As I read this provision, it says that historically, we have treated the Presidency different than just any other agency of Government. Because, historically, we've appropriated moneys to support a press operation to answer questions about the personal lives of the President and the First Family, when the Presidency, is involved, there is a different standard than it would be for other agencies. Am I basically on track with that and would you expound on that a bit?