August 2, 1994 - Part 5
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:10:50) On February 2, Jean Hanson and I went to the White House. She attended because, as Treasury's senior lawyer, she had been helping me on various RTC legal matters, and the subject matter was inherently legal. She saw nothing wrong with providing this information to the White House. I later learned that she also bad the good judgment to check the ethical issues with Dennis Foreman, Treasury's Chief Ethics Officer, who also saw nothing improper. Mr. Foreman, I might add, is a career appointee who preceded the Clinton Administration. In other words, Mr. Chairman, Treasury's General Counsel and its Senior Ethics Officer both approved this meeting. And as you know, the Office of Government Ethics has also rendered its verdict on that meeting, which is a favorable one. The meeting lasted no more than 20 minutes. Initially, Ms. HanSon and I described the generic procedures which the RTC used in this or any other case facing an expiring statute of limitations. We recited the three alternatives, following talking points which she had prepared. And this Committee, of course, has a copy of those. This was the total information provided which related to the RTC investigation of Madison, We provided no information on the status or outlook for the case. That would have been impossible because we possessed none. The Office of Government Ethics, which took testimony under oath from all participants. said in its report 410 that "nothing suggests that this part of the -meeting involved a disclosure of nonpublic information." Toward the end of the February 2 meeting, I also raised the question of recusal. And let me now address that. Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, the issue of recusal is a false one. Whether I recused my self or not would have had no impact on the investigation, none whatsoever. The facts are that I began thinking about recusal around February 1. And that on February 25, 1 did recuse myself. No matter came to me for decision on any case including Madison in that period. Moreover, prior to recusing myself, I was de facto recused. Deci. sions on cases never came to me at any time during my RTC tenure. And I had specifically reaffirmed to the RTC General Couns el before the February 2 meeting that she would be making all deci- sions related to Madison, not me. Indeed, I had told her that more than once, and with others present, and as you know, she testified before you to that effect. On February 2, when I informed the White House that I was thinking about recusal, I told them that it was irrelevant because the RTC General Counsel would be making all decisions on Madison, not me. The Office of Government Ethics confirms my de facto recusal. It states in its report that "recusal is just another word for nonparticipation " and I had already chosen nonparticipation. Nine days after the February 2 meeting, Congress passed a 2-year extension of the statute of limitations on Madison Guaranty9 days later. That made recusal entirely moot. My term as RTC Chairman was to expire and did expire on March 30. And with such additional time, it was almost certain that the RTC would not be making any Madison decisions by my March 30 termination date. In retrospect, I perhaps should have recused myself right off the bat. Some of this controversy would have been avoided. But before February 2, 1 had been advised that there was no legal or ethical requirement to recuse myself. I later receive two written opinions from ethics officers to that effect. Two written opinions