August 4, 1994 - Part 13
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(01:05:27) Senator MURRAY. And I appreciate that, but I wonder if we set the ethical bar so high, that no one can do any of these jobs? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I think that's a real problem. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murray. Are there any further questions for the witness because, if not, I'm going to excuse the witness. We've got the results of the deposition here with Ms. Hanson. There's been a request that it be read into the record, and I'm going to do that, in its entirety, in one moment. What I'd like to do, because of the hour of the evening that it is, or the morning, 1:05, 1 would hope we would not get into a de' bate on the substance of this' tonight. I think nobody has had a chance to read it and digest it. It will be out there in the pub public arena. We can all have it and take it up tomorrow if there's a need to do so. Senator BRYAN. Mr. Chairman, may Mr. Nussbaum be excused? Senator SARBANES. I want to say something, Mr. Nussbaum Senator DODD. And I do too, just 2 seconds, but go ahead. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. I want to thank Mr. Nussbaum. I think he's raised some very serious questions, very thought provoking, on the recusal issue, and while there's been sharp reaction from many Members here on the Committee, I think if they think about it , the implications of some of what's happening are very serious indeed. You're getting to the point, to take an extreme, a President comes in, He nominates people to office and they have to recuse themselves simply because they're nominated. Or, you know, someone says, well, I met him and we're sort of friends and now there's a tough decision here and I'm recusing myself. Now, the Altman case may be different, I think, but I think in a sense, it represents the politics of our time. Unfortunately, what's happened is there's a cynicism that's assuming if you have any connection at all, you can't make a tough independent judgment, and I think if we start down that path, it's fraught with very serious implications. I think that you've argued that case very strongly tonight and, I'm frank to say, I think it needs to be given a great deal of thought and attention. I also want to say when the panel was here from the Associate Counsels of the White House Office, they drew virtually uniform praise from Members of the Committee for their forthrightness, for their obvious ability, for their commitment, and for their understanding. 513 And I think it ought to be noted that those were people you brought into Government. They, in effect, were your people. You're the one who picked them, brought them in, and to the extent that we praised them yesterday, I think it's a reflection upon you this evening. Senator DODD. Can I just Mr. NUSSBAUM. Thank you, Senator. Senator DODD. I want to pick up and be very brief. I want to associate myself completely with the remarks of my colleague from Maryland. He's terribly perceptive most of the time, if not all of the time, only when he disagrees with me, which is far too frequently I'm afraid, but I also wanted to express my view-maybe we're becoming addicted to this process here late at night, but I think it's an extremely important debate and we have to find a forum in which to conduct it because I think there's a terrible danger in applying a standard that has such rigidity that we defeat the purpose for which the rule was established. There's also the danger of tyranny. We're raising the bar of recusal to such a level that it has the outcome determined before any consideration is given. The notion that public perception should weigh as heavily as the ethical or legal questions is a frightening thought to me. It may be a bit old-fashioned, but I was taught to believe that in public service, the standard which you use to judge your conduct is you do what's right, even if it's unpopular, even if a good part of your constituency or the public or the press doesn't like it.