August 3, 1994 - Part 4
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(15:05:33) But the one thing I ought to make clear, sir, is that the question was asked in a room of a hundred people listening to a seminar; it was extremely noisy. I think there were probably children there. This is the best of my recollection at that time. Senator BOND. Again, that's troublesome, but you contacted members of the White House Counsel's Office, Ms. Hanson's office and others, is that correct, in following up on the discussion you had with the President? Mr. LUDWIG. After having the question posed to me by the President, I wanted to give it considered attention. I could have been reflexive. I mean, the reflexive answer is I'm a regulator, I can't have any contact. But after all it was the President who posed the question to me. As a lawyer for many years, I wanted to give it considered attention. Senator BOND. Isn't that why you have the protection of an ethics officer in the agency? Doesn't that give you the cover? Nobody wants to tell the President no, but isn't that why you have an ethics officer, so you make somebody else the fall guy, or woman, if the case may be, to say no, to help you say no? Mr. LUDWIG. Well, I spoke to the lawyers. Jean Hanson is the Chief Counsel of the Treasury. She is the chief attorney to whom our chief attorney reports. It seemed to me that was the place to start. Senator BOND. But at that point, did she give you the advice not to carry it further? Mr. LUDWIG. As I say, sir, she was negative. As I remember it, she had a cautionary tone. She gave me minuscule advice or information about Madison. Senator BOND. Did she give you any specific ethics advice? 73 Mr. LUDWIG. No. As I say, she had a cautionary tone, but I do not remember a specific absolutely not or absolutely yes statement. She was cautionary. Senator BOND. But then even after having done that, you went ahead and made a follow-up call later on. After you said no improper contacts occurred, you made a follow-up call to Maggie Williams' office, and offered them your general advice. Mr. LUDWIG. Senator, it was clear to me if I were to get involved in a discussion with the President to give advice of whatever kind, I would have a tendency as a lawyer to want to know all the facts and circumstances and that can lead you into areas of impropriety or at least the appearance of impropriety. On the other hand, there are certainly some things one could say that clearly would violate nothing, that would be not inappropriate. It seems to me that giving the advice "disclose everything," which I did with Ms. Williams, not with the President, seems to me to be appropriate. Senator BOND. I think not only do lawyers have the problem of wanting to know all the facts, they want to give advice and I think that sometimes gets us into trouble. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with your conduct, I would just say that this is why an ethics counsel, who can be the abominable "no" man, can be held in protection in these situations. But as I conclude, I would only note that really the tone of the contact to you, contact to you by the President is the one which has set the tone that I think has raised questions throughout this hearing. I appreciate your candor, and I would just say that there has to be a heightened sensitivity to the work and the role of ethics officers in the Federal Government, something different than perhaps in the private sector. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bond. Let me just say for the record that I'm now going to include in the record Mr. Ludwig's memo of March 11, his recusal memo of February 24th and the two F01A requests, number 1183 to 86. Let me also indicate to my colleagues on this side, I've talked to Senator D'Amato and other Senators have questions. They have completed their questioning at this point on this side so when we finish, we'll be able to go on to the next panel unless others indicate otherwise and want to be recognized. Senator Dodd. Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chair-man.