August 2, 1994 - Part 8
August 2, 1994 - Part 8
(19:15:24) Let me, Mr. Altman, ask you, are you familiar with the standard set forth in Executive Order Number 12674 issued on April 12, 1989, as the basis for the standard of conduct regulations for Executive Branch employees which states, "employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance they are violating the 475 law or the ethical standards promulgated pursuant to this order." Are you familiar with that? Mr. ALTMAN. I know of it, Senator, yes. Senator ROTH. Now, the underlying regulations governing Executive Branch employees standards of conduct state, "employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an a appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts." Now, Mr. Altman, let's assume we're reasonable people and take a look at the relevant facts. You are a personal friend of the Clintons, are you not? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator ROTH. Your friendship with President Clinton dates back to our days as college classmates; is that correct? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator ROTH. You've maintained that friendship wiht the Clintons in the years since college; is that true? Mr. ALTMAN. We didn't have much contact in between college and mid- 1991, but we're friends. Senator ROTH. So I think that, Mr. Altman, a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would fairly hold you to have a personal relationship with the Clintons which you have already agreed that you do? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, Senator. Senator ROTH. Now, Mr. Altman, given your ]on time close personal relationship with the Clintons, given the Clintons' personal interest in the Madison/Whitewater matter, shouldn't you have disqualified yourself immediately from making any decision concerning Madison Guaranty , wouldn't that have been the common sense, correct thing to have done? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I've said earlier that in hindsight I should have recused myself at the outset of the time I was thinking about it, around February 1 or 2, but I was advised beforehand that there was no legal or ethical requirement to recuse, And then afterwards, I sought those opinions in writing and I received two opinions in writing, one from the RTC Ethics Officer and one from the Treasury Ethics Officer, which confirmed in writing two things: The first is there is no legal or ethical requirement to recuse, and the second is that recusal decisions typically aren't taken until a matter is ready for decision. And that one wasn't. Now, the Office of Government Ethics Report on Sunday raises questions about whether my decision to recuse had a sound foundation It's skeptical about my decision to recuse. All I'm trying to say is it wasn't an easy decision. What I think I did right was to instruct the RTC, instruct Ms. Kulka specifically that she would be Making all decisions on the case, not me, and to advise the White House of that. So my position is I was de -facto recused, I had withdrawn. You are right, I should have executed a formal recusal earlier than I ',did, but I think in terms of substance, I bad withdrawn, and that was the more important thing to do. 476 Senator ROTH. Well, in fact a whole cast of senior Treasury offi- cials recommended that you disqualify yourself. I think these in- eluded Jean Hanson and Josh Steiner 7 the General Counsel and Chief of Staff for the Treasury Department. Ellen Kulka, RTC Gen- eral Counsel, testified that she found it difficult to understand why you would put yourself in this impossible position. And of course, even the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Bentsen, agreed with this decision by stating that it sounded to him like this was something that you had to do; isn't that correct?