In '84 hearings before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of this committee, you mentioned the need to institute a cabinet-level briefing for new appointees. In '85, the Senate Subcommittee on Oversight, Government Management hearing you said you needed to "re-establish attempts to establish that program." Are ethics briefings now being held at the cabinet level? Mr. Martin. In individual agencies, no. Here is what is happeningMr. Sikorski. Cabinet-level briefings? Mr. Martin. Right. Presidential appointees, about every three months, receive a briefing from the White House on a number of matters—new appointees. Part of that briefing is a presentation by either the White House counsel or my office, and it includes an extensive discussion of the standards in conduct and the conflicts of interest. So that is at the presidential appointee level. I don't recall any cabinet members being present. Mr. Sikorski. A good question. Do you think people like Michael Deaver, Richard Allen, William Casey and others might have avoided their problems or difficulties had they received sufficient training at one of these briefings? Mr. Martin. No comment. Mr. Sikorski. In our discussions with the agency ethics officials, inspectors general and others than involved in the executive branch ethics program, we have been told that the whole structure of the program is flawed, and provides both the director of OGE and the Agency Ethics Officers insufficient independence to make tough judgments that are frequently required. Do you think the OGE Director has sufficient political independence to fulfill the substantial mandate that we require of him? Mr. Martin. I think it does. I have never received any political pressure to do anything in any particular matter. The problem—let me share the problem with you that I—it is not the independence of the Office of Government Ethics. At the various agencies, I think there is frequently tension between the ethics official, if he is the general counsel, and his duties to represent the agency and his duties to also represent my office, and frequently there is some tension there, and I am not sure how that can be resolved. Mr. Sikorski. We have heard that as well, and I think that is going to be a subject that I hope you focus on: And we will also. On August 18, Herbert Sanger, the general counsel of the TV A, designated agency ethics officer for TV A, resigned along with assistant general counsel and a staff attorney. Do you know why they resigned? You had some involvement in that issue down there. I raised this issue with a previous witness and highlighted the facts we know from the Post article and from discussions with some of the people involved. When did you first learn about this case? Mr. Martin. Either late May or early June. Mr. Sikosskl Did you meet Mr. Sanger and his assistant, William Mason0 Mr. Martin. Yes, I did. Mr. Sikorski. They flew to Washington sometime in early June? Mr. Martin. They did. Mr. Sikorski. Did Mr. Sanger ask you for your support in his struggle with the TVA board to uphold the ethics laws? Mr. Martin. He briefed me on the situation down there. Mr. Sikorski. He didn't ask for your support? Mr. Martin. Well, that is implied. That is clear. It is obvious that is what he wanted. Mr. Sikorski. Did he suggest you use your corrective action authority to force the TVA board to comply with the law? Mr. Martin. No, he didn't suggest that. Mr. Sikorski. Did someone else suggest it? Mr. Martin. Well, you mean—no, no. Mr. Sikorski. So the issue of corrective action, though, was not discussed? Mr. Martin. Oh, it was staffed at some length in my office. Mr. Sikorski. It was what? Mr. Martin. Staffed. We had staff discussions. Mr. Sikorski. In your meeting with Mr. Sanger, did you discuss corrective action? Mr. Martin. We may have discussed the situation, what my options were and are. Mr. Sikorski. Did you order corrective action? Mr. Martin. I issued a number of letters that are public record. I will be glad to provide them to you. Mr. Sikorski. All right. You did not order corrective action, however? Mr. Martin. Oh, I ordered—you should read my letters before you make any judgment, Mr. Congressman. I made a lot of people unhappy down there. Mr. Sikorski. As I understand, you issued a strong letter recommending but did not order the TVA to rescind the waiver? Mr. Martin. Did not order them to rescind a waiver? Mr. Sikorski. Right. You are quoted in the paper as saying, in your letter, that it is imperative that White, Telley and other private contractors, immediately cease participating in matters affecting their parent firms without regard to any waivers that may have been given. You warned that failure to stop the activities will severely damage the credibility of TVA's nuclear program, expose the contractors to legal difficulties under the conflict of interest law, and further exacerbate whatever difficulties they may face personally. And you go on to say that TVA contracts should be determined by objective decisionmakers, with no possible personal financial interests in the matter, the contracts that is, and they should not fall under the supervision of contract employees with financial ties to the providers. As I understand, you did not order that those waivers be rescinded? Mr. Martin. If they didn't get the message from that letter, they are never going to get it. Mr. Sikorski. Herein lies the problem. You have someone who is general counsel and the ethics official, who stood by the law, and made a stand, to the point of losing his job. You have two other attorneys, assistant counsel and the staff attorney who did the same, and a member of the board of TVA that did the same, based on the law with regards to conflict of interest. The ethics official came to you, asked for support, and you wrote a strong letter, and made some phone calls. Mr. Martin. I made a visit there, too. Mr. Sikorski. And made a visit. I suggest that Section 402(bX9), ordering corrective action on the part of agencies and employees which the director deems necessary, means more than giving a message through some letters, visits and phone calls. Mr. Martin. Let me share with you—I sent a strong letter to the I.G. there directing that certain investigative inquiries be made. That still is—may I finish? Mr. Sikorski. I don't believe the Inspector General before—well, continue. Mr. Martin. He has not gotten back to me yet with a full report. Mr. Sikorski. Before you leave the I.G., the Inspector General, I am told, sent the report originally sent to him by Mr. Sanger back to Mr. Sanger and told him to stuff it, in other words. Secondly, what have you accomplished? What did you recommend? Mr. Martin. Well, there are a number of matters unresolved about that, and which we are in the middle of right now. Wait, I don't want to prematurely do anything, especially discuss it here, that is going to, that would be premature, and so it is an ongoing matter and has not been resolved. And I sent two very strong letters down there and have met with the board and discussed it with the new general counsel as well as with two different sets of lawyers who have now been called in by the board, so it is a complex, very difficult matter. It has not yet been resolved. Mr. Sikorski. I appreciate that and I am not going to dance on your authority. I do, however, sense by your comment that if they didn't get the message from those letters, they are never going to get the message and that you had closed the matter? Mr. Martin. Oh, no, no. It is ongoing, Mr. Congressman, and let me share with you, I was keenly concerned about the reasons why Mr. Sanger was no longer there, and they involve a lot more than this matter. They involve other things that are personal to Mr. Sanger and allegations against him personally. Mr. Sikorski. What action did TVA take in response to your letter? Mr. Martin. They are not doing anything now. The allegation against me is that I am costing them a million dollars a day or something, but that is a Mr. Sikorski. Were you contacted by anybody at the NRC about your involvement in this ethics issue? Mr. Martin. I was contacted by a gentleman, yes. Mr. Sikorski. Tom Roberts? Mr. Martin. Roberts is his name. Mr. Sikorski. Did he call you, questioning the interest taken in the controversy by you? Mr. Martin. He called me because he was allegedly a prospective nominee to the TVA board of directors and asked me what in fact was going on down there, and I gave him a very limited and brief description of what we were doing, since that description comported with what had already been in the newspapers, and that was about the extent of it. Mr. Sikorski. He didn't offer his opinion as to the matter? Mr. Martin. Nor did I solicit it. It was a very brief conversation. Mr. Sikorski. Do you know if he was contacted by Stone and Webster prior to making the phone call? Mr. Martin. I have no idea. It was a very brief conversation, and the only reason I shared anything with him is because he told me that he was a prospective nominee down there, and I thought it only fair to tell him what he was getting into. Mr. Sikorski. You went down there after Sanger and the others resigned. Between the mailing of your letter and the resignation of Mr. Sanger and the others, what did your office do? Did your office do anything, before the resignation, after your letter? Mr. Martin. Well, I visited there. Mr. Sikorski. After Sanger resigned? Mr. Martin. Yes. Mr. Sikorski. Did you intervene on the ethics officer's behalf? Mr. Martin. Did I do what? Mr. Martin. Prior to his resignation? Mr. Martin. I sent my letters before he resigned and I had a number of discussions with Mr. Sanger, encouraged him not to leave but to hang on. Mr. Sikorski. I want to thank the gentlemen on the panel for coming here this morning and assisting the subcommittee as we have gone through this investigation. Having anyone look over your shoulder is difficult, and I hope we will be able to continue a good relationship. I am bothered very much by this whole TVA-Sanger matter. I request that the Subcommittee adjourn until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning in Room 2218 for continuation of this hearing. We have asked Mr. Sanger and others concerned with the matter to testify there. We ask you, Mr. Director, to have someone available at least to respond to factual situations if they become contested with regard to OGE's involvement. We are looking at this from the standpoint of an ethics officer, an agency's ethics officer, and what has happened to him and others. We will ask Mr. Paone and Mr. Yamada to testify at the end of that continuation of this hearing tomorrow. Mr. Martin. I was deeply determined about Mr. Sanger but it is quite a complex problem and I was concerned that there be, that Mr. Sanger was being forced out because of a strong position he took regarding an alleged ethics conflict of interest violation, and it deeply concerned me and I satisfied myself that and requested that he not, to him personally, that he stay on, but it was his decision to go. Mr. Sikorski. We have a series of questions on the budget and the resources there and a few others that we will submit to you in writing and ask that you provide responses. Mr. Martin. Please do, Mr. Chairman. I normally appear alone at hearings, because I think I am responsible. But because Mr. Cobaleski and Mr. Campbell have been involved in a series of interviews in connection with your subcommittee, I wanted them along, so we have every intention of cooperating with your good efforts. |