Mr. SIKORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Martin.

I made reference in my opening statement to the good job that we believe that your office is doing in being responsive in providing legal advice and conducting ethics training for some government employees. I also raised some concerns as you know, about other

areas.

I would like to go through some of those. In the enforcement area, how does your office determine what ethics cases it intervenes and what cases it chooses to leave to the agencies to resolve?

Mr. MARTIN. It is kind of an ad hoc thing, Mr. Congressman. I am personal friends and professional friends with many of the Inspectors General, and various enforcement people in the Executive Branch.

Matters come to my attention on a personal basis, either through that network, and Mr. Campbell and Mr. Covaleski have the same kind of relationship at a different level, and with different people, so we are advised of matters that are pending, or might occur through a personal and professional relationship, as well as newspapers frequently are an important source of information for us, and when we first learn of something, we make an inquiry into it. Generally, depending on the nature of the problem, and the seriousness of it, we will make an immediate phone call to the ethics official at the agency, which might be followed up by a letter to either that person, the head of the agency or to the IG requesting further information.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Doesn't the absence of any criteria, even general criteria, lead to inconsistencies in enforcement and invite political pressures in the decision-making process?

Mr. MARTIN. That has not been my experience.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Well, if you don't have criteria, standards by which you conduct the office, and you act, as you admitted, on an ad hoc basis, you open the process up to inconsistencies in the application of your resources, as well as perhaps political pressures?

Mr. MARTIN. I don't think that is accurate. The standard is either the standards of conduct or the conflict of interest laws or allegations that involve allegations of either of those two, one civil and the other criminal.

Mr. SIKORSKI. There are certain things you get involved in, and certain ones you don't?

Mr. MARTIN. Any allegations involving either of those two, we are in it. Unless it is clear that neither is involved, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SIKORSKI. Okay. Well, in your opinion, what are OGE's investigative responsibilities?

Mr. MARTIN. Well, we do not have, as you know, Mr. Congressman, an investigative staff. We have auditors, lawyers, analysts. Our investigative role is quite limited in that we do not have investigative staff.

We leave that to the Inspectors General when we make application and requests, or to the FBI.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Well, Common Cause pointed out that you were interviewed in U.S. News and World Report and said any time a charge of conflict of interest or misconduct is brought to our attention, or we find out about it, we investigate.

You made reference to, in your last response, any time an accusation that there is a violation of a law or standard, you are in it. Mr. MARTIN. That is correct, we are in it in terms of we may request an investigation or further information. If it inappropriately insinuates in that article that we have an investigative staff, then that was a misstatement by me.

We do not have the capability to investigate.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Okay, so now you hear about a problem, talk to the ethics officer, and he says there is no problem, what happens? Mr. MARTIN. We get the facts. We have a very-I believe, and I know, I have a sophisticated legal staff, as well as an analyst staff, and we would satisfy ourselves that in fact, that is the case.

Mr. SIKORSKI. How do you get the facts? You just said you don't have an investigative function?

Mr. MARTIN. If the DAEO knows the facts, we get them from them.

Mr. SIKORSKI. If the DAEO says, I have the facts, and there is no problem.

Mr. MARTIN. We ask for them. What are the facts?

Mr. SIKORSKI. They provide them in writing.

Mr. MARTIN. Perhaps in writing, maybe orally over the phone. Mr. SIKORSKI. Generally orally?

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I would say most of our advisory business in the office is orally and over the phone.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Because from what Common Cause could find out from looking at your correspondence file with regards to 23 toplevel officials, very little writing in there. I take that to mean getting these facts comes orally.

Mr. MARTIN. I am not sure. I am not familiar with what you are referring to, Mr. Congressman, but——

Mr. SIKORSKI. We will get into that. You answered the question. The Deaver case focused on Mr. Deaver's contract with the Canadian Government on behalf of their efforts to reduce acid rain on the North American continent.

Did the Office of Government Ethics ever attempt to contact officials involved in acid rain decisionmaking that were allegedly contacted by Michael Deaver?

Mr. MARTIN. We requested White House counsel as the designated ethics official at the White House.

Mr. SIKORSKI. You wrote Mr. Fred Fielding last November, of 1985?

Mr. MARTIN. It was early on in November, December.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Then again, February 5th, 1986, you wrote him and said, what he provided was not acceptable.

Mr. MARTIN. That is my recollection.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Did your office ever contact Drew Lewis to ask him about his status as a White House employee, such as whether he had an office in the Executive Office Building or offered staff issues that were critical in determining if Mr. Deaver had violated the post-employment Statute?

Mr. MARTIN. Formally, we would rely on the agency ethics official to carry out that function.

Mr. SIKORSKI. That agency did not provide you with that infor mation? Mr. Fielding did not provide you with that information?

Mr. MARTIN. Eventually, I think he did.

Mr. SIKORSKI. The information that you acted on came from the General Accounting Office on the investigation initiated by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce?

Mr. MARTIN. We cooperated with them in that matter, a rare occasion for us. We shared information and also gave them information they didn't have access to.

Mr. SIKORSKI. If you had relied on Mr. Fielding's investigation, you wouldn't have had that information?

Mr. MARTIN. I am not so sure that is accurate.

Mr. SIKORSKI. You didn't get it from Mr. Fielding.

Mr. MARTIN. I eventually got a subsequent report from Mr. Fielding signed by Mr. Wallison.

Mr. SIKORSKI. That report said that there was no contact with the White House, that he was not getting the support services?

Mr. MARTIN. The last report I got was, and I don't have that file with me, nor did I review it for this hearing, my last recollection is that Mr. Wallison's report did not opine as to those things, but gave a summary, or a summary of a series of interviews with the critical people involved, and our referral to the Department of Justice was based on that, as well as other information we had.

We finally did get a summary of the statements of the principal people involved.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Made to the GAO?

Mr. MARTIN. No, made to White House counsel.

Mr. SIKORSKI. The referral was, or the decision to refer was based on information supplied by the GAO, not on information from the designated agency ethics official?

Mr. MARTIN. That is not accurate.

Mr. SIKORSKI. I think it is. What information did you get from the GAO?

Mr. MARTIN. I think-now, my recollection is not good on this-I think we got some information from them regarding their interview with Drew Lewis.

Mr. SIKORSKI. What information did you provide to GAO on the matter?

Mr. MARTIN. I will have to get that for you. I didn't review that for this hearing, so it is not at the tip of my-but I recall▬▬

Mr. SIKORSKI. The information you had available to offer to the GAO was information you received from Fred Fielding at the Office of White House Counsel, is that correct?

The only information that you had available to provide the GAO was information you received from Mr. Fielding, the designated agency ethics official in the White House counsel?

Mr. MARTIN. Principally, that is correct.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Where else?

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I think I had my staff talk to people at the State Department as well.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Who?

Mr. MARTIN. An ethics official or someone at the State Department.

Mr. SIKORSKI. And

Mr. MARTIN. We made other inquiries outside Mr. Fielding's office. I am not sure of the extent of the information I had. I will be glad to supply you with that.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Mr. Martin?

Mr. MARTIN. Counsel reminds me what the GAO obtained at that point was also information they got from the White House, so we were kind of sharing information at that point.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Why didn't you contact key individuals and ask the IG to conduct an investigation?

Mr. MARTIN. Well-that is a very sensitive thing when you are asking the IGs to investigate the White House, and the question is who.

Mr. SIKORSKI. This relates back to the initial question on fairness and application of your inquiries, your investigations which you said are done on an ad hoc basis. Doesn't that open up the political pressures? You are saying it is very sensitive.

Mr. MARTIN. Well, it is sensitive not only because it is the White House, but also because the Inspectors General investigate and look into fraud, waste and abuse in their own agencies.

Where you have a situation where there is not an Inspector General for the White House, you have some very sensitive problems, if you request an IG to investigate an agency that is, say, another agency, not just the White House, so it wasn't, I determined that, at the time, that I could get sufficient information from the ethics officials involved or other ethics officials in other agencies.

Mr. SIKORSKI. It took the Congress and the GAO to get to the bottom, at least begin to get to the bottom of the Deaver matter and not the Office of Government Ethics?

Mr. MARTIN. I don't share that view.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Well, the-

Mr. MARTIN. I referred it to the Department of Justice before GAO ever did, long before.

Mr. SIKORSKI. If you had depended on Fred Fielding's memo over there, there wouldn't be any referral?

Mr. MARTIN. I don't share that.

Mr. SIKORSKI. I sit on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, and have gone through this whole Deaver matter, and it is clear from that record that it was the GAO at the insistence of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee that got to the bottom of the matter, or we probably would be sitting here today talking about exchanges of two letters, four letters and a few telephone calls; but that is my opinion, and you have yours.

In 1983, on the advice of the Office of Government Ethics, the Congress gave your office the authority to direct the Inspectors General of any agency to conduct an ethics investigation, and you said that is what you have them do.

In 1985, at Senate hearings, you said, "In a particular investigation, I have not called upon the Inspectors General." Why not?

Mr. MARTIN. I don't recall the hearing or my statement, but I have directed and requested a number of investigations by Inspectors General.

Mr. SIKORSKI. So, there have been a number of investigations using the Inspectors General since the passage of the amendment allowing you specifically to do that?

Mr. MARTIN. That is correct.

Mr. SIKORSKI. How many?

Mr. MARTIN. I don't know how many, but I can get that number

for you.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Is it less than 10?

Mr. MARTIN. Probably less than 10.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Would it be closer to five?

Mr. MARTIN. I don't know.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Mr. Campbell? Mr. Covaleski?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I don't have a number.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Less than five?

Mr. CAMPBELL. My belief is it is greater than five. I cannot give you a number at the present time.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Mr. Wertheimer testified in your confirmation hearing you said, and I quote,

Where there is any question of an official status in terms of his compliance with the Ethics in Government Act, the OGE should issue a public statement.

How many public statements has your office issued since you were confirmed?

Mr. MARTIN. We have issued a number of statements.

Mr. SIKORSKI. How many?

Mr. MARTIN. I don't know.

Mr. SIKORSKI. General terms?

Mr. MARTIN. Probably half a dozen.

Mr. SIKORSKI. How many public officials' status have been called into question during your term?

Mr. MARTIN. Oh, a number.

Mr. SIKORSKI. More than a half-dozen?

Mr. MARTIN. I don't feel it is proper in all circumstances to issue a public statement about every allegation. That is all I would be doing.

Mr. SIKORSKI. You said where there is any question of a government official's complance with the Ethics in Government Act, the OGE should issue a public statement. You don't think that is appropriate now?

Mr. MARTIN. Not in every instance, no.

Mr. SIKORSKI. Why?

Mr. MARTIN. Well, because

Mr. SIKORSKI. Don't they have a right to have a clear name?
Mr. MARTIN. They do.

Mr. SIKORSKI. The public has a right to know. The public has a right to know if there is a problem.

Mr. MARTIN. If there is sufficient public interest, in an official's actions or something that might affect the confidence of the public and the ability of the government to do its job, and if I feel it is appropriate and my staff recommends it, then we do issue a statement.

Mr. SIKORSKI. You didn't say that when you were confirmed for the position of Director of the OGE.

Mr. MARTIN. Well, I am sorry. That was three years ago. If that is accurate, and I don't know whether it was in my prepared statement or in questions, but you know, you say things in response to questions that you might not say on reflection, but I have had