Attorney General MEESE. I have learned since the public information was published in the news media that there had been a contact between the Office of Government Ethics and the Department, which was not known to me at the time, in April of 1987 about the 1985 form that was filed in 1986. Senator STEVENS. But the statute specifically says that the Office of Government Ethics has the duty to notify the individual in three different places. There was no individual notification to you as to what additional information would be required or that you were not in compliance in terms of the judgment of the Office of Government Ethics, or the steps which, if any, which could be done appropriately to assure compliance with those laws and regulations? That was never given to you? Attorney General MEESE. No, sir, it was not. Senator STEVENS. Thank you very much. Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Stevens. Mr. Meese, on May 24th, 1985, you signed and circulated this recusal policy, and we were talking about that when my time ran out last time. You testified, I believe, that you were not required to circulate that recusal policy, is that correct? Attorney General MEESE. That's correct, sir. Senator LEVIN. Now, is it not true that the Ethics in Government Act requires you to circulate that recusal policy because you had made a commitment to the Judiciary Committee that you would in fact do so? Attorney General MEESE. I was required to develop and to provide such a recusal policy. I don't know that there was any requirement for circulation. In any event, I did circulate. Senator LEVIN. But you said before you sort of tried to diminish the importance of that appendix, and you said, well, gee, there was no obligation on my part to even circulate that policy. Attorney General MEESE. It was a requirement to develop a recusal policy which, of course, I did. Senator LEVIN. Let me read you Section 211: In any case in which an individual agrees with a Senate Confirmation Committee to take any action to comply with this Act or any other law or regulation governing conflicts of interest or establishing standards of conduct applicable with respect to officers or employees of the Government, that individual shall notify in writing the Designated Agency Official, the Office of Government Ethics, and the appropriate committee of the Senate, as the case may be. So you had to notify those entities of your action? Senator LEVIN. It's a little different impression than you gave before which was Attorney General MEESE. No, not at all. Same impression. Senator LEVIN. Well, the record will reflect and those who heard the testimony Attorney General MEESE. The record will reflect that I said I did not have to circulate that to the heads of offices, bureaus, boards and divisions. I only had to establish such a policy and notify people in the Act. All of those things were done. Beyond that, we also sent the recusal policy to all of the other components within the Department of Justice. Senator LEVIN. The record will speak for itself. Now, on April 29th of that year, is it not correct that the Acting Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, Mr. Tarr, sent you a memorandum saying that the deadline for circulating the recusal policy and for divesting these holdings is May 24, 1985. Is that not correct? Attorney General MEESE. That's correct. Senator LEVIN. And he also notified you, did he not, that please note we compiled the attached list of your current financial holdings, Appendix A to the draft recusal policy, from your financial disclosure report, dated January 10, 1985. This list must be revised, of course, if there are any changes in your financial holdings other than divesting the items listed in Appendix B. Is that correct? Attorney General MEESE. It's correct that he sent me that memorandum, yes, sir. Senator LEVIN. And did you read that memorandum? Senator LEVIN. So that you were specifically notified that you must revise the list if there are any changes in your financial holding. Now, my question is why didn't you revise the list as he told you you must? Attorney General MEESE. Well, first of all, when he said must, he meant must in order to make it correct. There's no legal requirement that that list be revised at all. However, it was inadvertently omitted, as I mentioned. Attorney General MEESE. It was inadvertently omitted when it was typed up. I did not spot the omission when it was typed up. Senator LEVIN. So you don't take responsibility for the inadvertence? Attorney General MEESE. Well, certainly. I was equally responsible with everybody else in this. Senator LEVIN. Okay. What I am trying to do is identify here whether or not you accept at least making that one error? Attorney General MEESE. I accept responsibility for the fact that a particular entry was inadvertently omitted from the appendix which was unnecessary on the recusal policy, yes. Senator LEVIN. Now, you say the appendix was unnecessary on the recusal policy. The recusal policy which your own assistant said must be circulated by May 24th, your memorandum which you signed said that I have attached Appendix A and the entities in which Mrs. Meese or I have a financial interest are shown on that appendix. Are you suggesting that's not part of the policy? Attorney General MEESE. It is not part of the policy. It's part of the memorandum. And had that been deleted, I would still have complied with everything I assured the Senate that I would do. Senator LEVIN. But it was attached to it, wasn't it, that Appendix A? Attorney General MEESE. That's right. Senator LEVIN. I don't know why you want to avoid that. It seems to me if you make reference in your own policy on May 24th to something, and you say the entities in which Mrs. Meese or I have a financial interest are shown on Appendix A to this memorandum. I don't know why you are trying to avoid saying that Appendix A is part of that memorandum. Attorney General MEESE. I have not avoided it, and my position on that matter speaks for itself. Senator LEVIN. And even though your assistant, again Mr. Tarr, told you that you must revise this prior to circulating it, you didn't. You didn't revise it, did you? Attorney General MEESE. I think it was inadvertently omitted from the appendix. It was a provision of the recusal policy that I would recuse myself in any matter in which Financial Management International came up. So I think the important thing is, as I said in my opening statement, that I have followed all the requirements of recusal statutes and my agreement with the Senate at all times. Senator LEVIN. Well, that's what you feel is important and you have testified to that. Attorney General MEESE. Yes, sir. Senator LEVIN. But my feeling is somewhat different. My feeling is that you were notified that you must revise the list if there are any changes in your financial holdings prior to circulation of the policy. And you didn't do it, did you? Attorney General MEESE. My answer is already in the record. Senator LEVIN. I think that's an important question so could you give us a direct answer? Did you in fact revise this as you were told you must? Attorney General MEESE. No, I did not revise the recusal policy. Senator LEVIN. No. Did you revise Appendix A, as you said you must. It says "The list". "The list." That is Appendix A. "This list must be revised, of course, if there are any changes in your financial holdings." My question is, did you revise it as you were told you must? Attorney General MEESE. I did not revise the appendix that was attached to the recusal policy. I did, of course, provide that the information about Financial Management be included in the list that was used for recusal purposes within my office. What I am saying is, that as far as the recusal policy is concerned, the law was followed. The appendix has no legal effect nor was it required. Senator LEVIN. The policy was required? Attorney General MEESE. The policy was required. Senator LEVIN. The appendix was referred to in the policy? Attorney General MEESE. Right. Senator LEVIN. And was attached to the policy? Attorney General MEESE. Well, the appendix Senator LEVIN. Is that true? It was not attached to the policy? Attorney General MEESE. The appendix is not a part of the policy. The appendix was referred to in the memorandum that set forth the particular policy. It says very clearly here the- Senator LEVIN. Well, let me read you—— Attorney General MEESE [continuing]. The policy is included in the statement that starts the second full paragraph. "I am recusing myself from participation in any of the following matters" and ends, "Finally, I will recuse myself from participation in any matter in which, in my judgment, it is desirable for me to do so in order to avoid an appearance of impropriety." That is the policy. Then the memorandum goes on to say-— Senator LEVIN. But now keep reading. Attorney General MEESE. The memorandum goes on to say: "To assist you in identifying matters from which I may be disqualified, the entities in which Mrs. Meese or I have a financial interest are shown on Appendix A to this memorandum." That is not a part of the policy; it is a part of the memorandum. Senator LEVIN. It is part of this memorandum? Senator LEVIN. All right. And just to summarize this point here, that I am making: is it not a fair statement, just taking the straight English language from your own assistant's memo to you of April 29th, that you were told that the list-that is, Exhibit A, Appendix A-that list must be revised, of course. Of course it must be revised, he told you, if there are any changes in your financial holdings, other than divesting the items listed in Appendix B prior to circulation of the recusal policy. And I am just asking you a straightforward question, did you revise that as you were told you must? That is my question. Attorney General MEESE. And again, the implication that you are making that I must makes it sound like Senator LEVIN. No. That is not my word. Attorney General MEESE [continuing]. Make it sound like a matter of law. Senator LEVIN. No. That is not my word. That is your assistant's word, "must." Attorney General MEESE. He said I must in order for it to be correct, is the implication that I drew. The answer to your question is no. Inadvertently, Financial Management was left off. Senator LEVIN. All right. And you left it off? Attorney General MEESE. Certainly. Senator LEVIN. All right. Attorney General MEESE. Or whoever typed it left it off, but I am responsible for it. Senator LEVIN. Well, you did▬▬ Attorney General MEESE. No, I did not type it, Senator. Senator LEVIN. You did sign it, though? Attorney General MEESE. I initialed it. Senator LEVIN. Yes. Did you read it before you initialed it? Attorney General MEESE. Yes, sir. Senator LEVIN. Good. At least you read it before you initialed it, even though you did not type it, right? Attorney General MEESE. I read it and I initialed it. Senator LEVIN. Now my time has expired, so we will go, again, to Senator Roth. Senator ROTH. Let me ask you this, Mr. Meese. Every time there was an addition to your financial holdings, were you required to make a new listing? Attorney General MEESE. No, sir. I was not. As a matter of fact the listing, to ensure that I recused myself properly, was not based on the appendix of this document. It was a separate file that is maintained by an assistant in my office. And each time there was any change-and there have not been that many changes in our financial situation-but any time there is a change, that assistant is notified so that that file may be kept up to date. Senator ROTH. And you did testify that in that file there was a record of this partnership? Attorney General MEESE. Yes, sir. Senator ROTH. So that from the point of view of substance, you would have been recused from handling any matter relating to it? Attorney General MEESE. Yes, sir. I would. Senator ROTH. Have you personally checked it to make sure that that is included as part of the record? Attorney General MEESE. Yes, sir. I have checked to make sure that the assistant was aware of, and that the file contains information relating to, Financial Management International. Senator ROTH. When was the partnership actually filed in California? Attorney General MEESE. My understanding, Senator, it was actually filed in California some time in August of 1985. Senator ROTH. Now I would like to go to some occurrences from this morning. I asked the Director of the Office of Government Ethics whether the financial disclosure law needed amendment or clarification. He thought not. I must confess I am not so sure of that. Now, if a Government official wishes to enter into a blind financial arrangement that cannot meet the statutory definition of a qualified blind trust, what is he to do? I do not believe that the financial disclosure law should have the effect of barring investments. Officials should be able to invest prudently. The law should only require disclosure, in some cases recusal. Now as I read the statutory definition of a qualified blind trust, it excludes situations where the trustee is a partner. So as I understand the facts, Mr. Chinn was a partner of yours. Thus the limited partnership, as such, could not be approved as a qualified blind trust. Therefore, your only recourse was to disclose the assets of the partnership. But I gather you, for reasons entirely consistent with the financial disclosure law, wished the specific assets to be blind. Is that correct? Attorney General MEESE. That is correct, Senator, and I agree with you. I think that a public official should be able to have an arrangement such as this in which he, or she, has no knowledge of what investments the funds are made in, so that you can have a totally blind situation. I believe that that should be lawful. It seems to me, that having to disclose what the transactions are, is counterproductive to the concept of that official having no knowledge of what the investments are. Senator ROTH. Well, it seems ironic to me, that in the name of conflicts-free Government, OGE would require you to find out the identity of your assets and disclose them on the form. In short, the current law, as interpreted this morning, would make an official investing in a limited blind partnership either give up the blindness or give up the partnership. I am not sure whether that result is desirable as a matter of law. |