August 3, 1994 - Part 4
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(14:55:38) Senator SARBANES. Yeah, but why do you feel you need to do that? Mr. LUDWIG, Well, I knew that there was a great deal of concern on the part of this Committee with respect to Ricki Tigert's nomination and whether or not as a friend of the President and First Lady she should decide matters relating to them personally. And I concluded that even though nothing like that Senator SARBANES. What about that? I mean, some Members had that and she undertook that undertaking, of course, she was seeking to he confirmed, but are you and the President lifelong friends from childhood, constantly saw one another and been very close? Mr. LUDWIG. Not at all. Senator SARBANES. What"s the nature of that? If I know the President and I get appointed to a regulatory job, do I have to disqualify myself if any matter comes before me? This is actually the issue Alt -man raised where he said-it was an interesting point 70 he said the Office of Government Ethics had to some extent been critical of the recusal on the basis that it wasn't legally required, it wasn't ethically required, he went ahead and did it anyhow. Now, I mean, what's the nature of the relationship? You're not the President's brother, you're not related to him, so what's the nature of the relationship that you perceive has created an appearance that required a recusal? I mean, this is an interesting issue. It's not altogether directly on point, but it does have a bearing on how people conduct themselves throughout the Government. Mr. LUDWIG, Well, I think that's fair, sir. I'm very cautious by nature and, as a regulator, I think regulators really have to try to achieve the highest standard of ethics and integrity they possibly can. I've certainly tried my best to do that in office. Since this was such a hot topic in the newspapers, the public could be confused as to whether or not there would be any impropriety, and there have been a lot of accusations Senator SARBANES. Let's find out what the I mean, you know the President and Mrs. Clinton. Mr. LUDWIG. I do know them. Senator SARBANES. How long have you known them? Mr. LUDWIG. I met the President when we were students at Oxford, and I knew the President and Mrs. Clinton when we were students at Yale Law School. Senator SARBANES. And have you seen them frequently over the years? Mr. LUDWIG. No. Every two years or so we might exchange greeting cards or, share a telephone call or chance meeting. Senator SARBANES. Would you recuse yourself in matters involving somebody else that you knew exactly on the same basis on which you knew the President? Suppose I'd been at Oxford with you and we knew each other and we went to law school together and we saw each other once in a while over the years., and we changed Christmas cards every couple of years and I had a matter before you; would you recuse yourself in my case? Mr. LUDWIG. I would. It is a very, very cautious approach. But it seems to me, sir, that given the sort of accusations going back and forth in the newspapers, the kind of innuendos that we have seen and rumors in the press, that this is a case where it makes sense to be hypercautious, but I think one could very well argue it the other way, that a recusal is not necessary. Senator SARBANES. Well, you don't feel that simply because you knew him and were friends, you wouldn't be able to render a-an objective judgment, do you? Mr. LUDWIG. I definitely do not, sir. That is, I'm really confident that I can today, or I could then, render a fair judgment irrespective of having known the President over these years, so I don't think it was a matter of impropriety. I think it was a concern about an appearance of impropriety, given the amount of press attention and rumor and innuendo. Senator SARBANES. All right. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bond. Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, before the Senator, begins and I wouldn't-and I'm not suggesting this, we change this point. We 71 noted yesterday, are we on 10-minute cycles or 7-minute cycles? We are on the 7? Oh. The CHAIRMAN, We moved to 7 today. We did 10 yesterday, particularly for Mr. Altman, because it was going to be a long day. We've gone to Senator DODD. I wanted to make a point because we had a hard time reaching somebody The CHAIRMAN. Well, that's one of the reasons why it was a oneday event and we've been going 7-minute cycles today, and that gives people down the line a chance to get into the act more often. Senator Bond.