August 3, 1994 - Part 5
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:00:03) Ms. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Beth Nolan. Since February 1993, 1 have been Associate Counsel to the President. I also serve as the Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official for the White House; the Counsel to the President serves as the Designated Agency Ethics Official. While serving in the White House, I am on leave from my position as a law professor at The National Law Center, George Washington University, where I have taught courses in legal ethics, Government ethics, and constitutional law. Before I began teaching, I served for 4 years, from 1981 to 1985, as a staff attorney in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice. As alternate ethics official, my responsibilities include matters arising under the conflict of interest laws and the standards of conduct, as well as other matters concerning Administration ethics Policy. My job involves frequent consultation with ethics officials throughout the Executive Branch. My only contacts with a Treasury official on this matter fell into this area of consultation. I had several telephone conversations with Dennis Foreman, the Designated Agency Ethics Official of the Department of the Treasury. I spoke with Mr. Foreman initially at the request of Bernard Nussbaum, then Counsel to the President, regarding the recusal standards applicable to Presidential appointees as they affected Roger Altman, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and Interim CEO of the Resolution Trust Corporation. 90 Mr. Foreman and I discussed the general standards, and he told me that he intended to contact Art Kusinski, the Designated Agency Ethics Official of the RTC, and Steven Potts, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, to evaluate the recusal issue. This made clear to me that a decision process was in place in which the recusal decision would receive serious consideration by the appropriate officials. It is my recollection that I had a brief phone call with Mr. Nussbaum in which I reported these matters to him, and that I received no follow-up instructions to do anything further. Mr. Foreman later advised me he had been in contact with both the RTC and OGE and that a legal memorandum had been prepared and forwarded to Mr. Altman setting forth the standards applicable to his recusal. These phone calls are the total of my contacts with the Treasury on this matter. My conversations with Mr. Foreman were fully consistent with the duties of a White House ethics lawyer, and, indeed, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics has determined that they were "similar to the types of discussions that take place daily between Executive Branch ethics officials and the White House ethics expert on matters involving Presidential appointees." I will be happy to answer your questions. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Eggleston, let me start with you. On March 1, 1993, you were serving as Associate Counsel to the President and as I understand it, you reported to Bernie Nussbaum, who was at that time Counsel to the President; is that right? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, it was March 1, 1994. 1 didn't start in the White House until September 1993. The CHAIRMAN, Let the record make that correction, 1994. At that time in 1994, March 1, you would have been reporting to Bernie Nussbaum, Counsel to the President; is that right? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you also report to Harold Ickes, who was Deputy Chief of Staff to the White House? Mr. EGGLESTON. I did not report directly to Mr. Ickes. On an asneeded basis, I provided legal advice or support to him. He was not MY direct support-- excuse me, direct report. The CHAIRMAN. Did Mr. Ickes assign you a task of writing a memo concerning the Rose Law Firm? Mr. EGGLESTON. He did. The CHAIRMAN. Tell me what you were specifically assigned to do in that memo. Mr. EGGLESTON. I believe that that assignment came sometime. certainly after the February 24th hearing, which took place before. this Committee. I don't recall whether it was Friday, Saturday or Sunday. It was before the date of the memo--the date of my memo is actually February 28th. I think I wrote this sometime over the: weekend. Mr. Ickes essentially asked me if I would prepare a memo on where things stand now. A number of things had occurred sort of at the hearing that I think changed between the hearing and the following day that changed where things stood- 91 The CHAIRMAN. Let me stop you. You say "where things stand." What "things" are we talking about? Mr. EGGLESTON. Probably the easiest way for me to do it, I do not have a real clear recollection of exactly what he asked me to do, but I'm fairly confident that my memorandum responded to whatever it was that he asked me to do. I think that he asked me, as I recall, generally to set forth where the matter stood with regard to the Rose Law Firm, which had frankly, Mr. Chairman, been the matter that had dominated, as I recall, 75 percent of the hearing that took place here on February Keith.