August 4, 1994 - Part 7
August 4, 1994 - Part 7
(16:05:49) As I have said publicly in the past, I did blow off steam in that conversation, based on my belief that Mr. Stephens had and has a conflict of interest, that he could not be an impartial investigator. Mr. Steiner informed me that the decision had been made by an independent board. That ended the conversation. I took no further action. I believe later that day I had a conversation with Harold Ickes and Roger Altman during which the subject of his recusal was discussed, specifically, as I recall, that he had informed a New York Times editor that he had decided to recuse himself. I was concerned that because of the manner in which he had chosen to announce his decision, the Administration would, for a time, be maintaining inconsistent public positions on this issue. I suggested that, as a courtesy to the President, Mr. Altman write a personal note explaining his decision. I took no further action concerning this issue. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Podesta, why don't you give us your statement now. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Stephanopoulos. JOHN D. PODESTA, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. PODESTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is John Podesta. I am an Assistant to the President and White House Staff Secretary, a position I have held since inauguration day, January 20, 1993. My principal duties involve managing the paper flow going to and from the President. Earlier in my career, I spent more than 9 years on the staff of two Senate Committees-as Counsel to the Judiciary Committee and for more than a year as Chief Counsel to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. As a result of my Capitol Hill experience, I have from time to time been asked at the White 361 House to work on legislative and congressional matters. It is in this context that my connection to the matter before this Committee took place. On or perhaps just before February 14, 1994, 1 was asked by Mack McLarty and Pat Griffin, the Director of White House Legislative Affairs, to work on upcoming hearings involving RTC matters. Mr. Griffin bad recently joined the White House staff and was concentrating his time and attention on passage of the President's legislative program, principally Health Care reform. In anticipation of upcoming RTC Oversight Board hearings, we expected questions on Madison Guaranty to be raised. My task, as I saw it, was to analyze what was likely to take place at the hearings and to recommend ways to ensure that the hearings were fair and balanced. This assignment was in addition to my regular duties, and did not consume the majority of my time. As best as I can recall, this is a summary of what occurred over the following days. On February 15, 1 met with Mike Levy, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and discussed the expected RTC Oversight Board hearing in the Senate Banking Committee. Mr. Levy briefed me on the composition and functions of the RTC Oversight Board. During the remainder of that week, Mr. Levy and I had several telephone conversations concerning the hearing. We never discussed the underlying investigation of Madison, nor did I discuss that subject with anyone else at Treasury or the RTC. Mr. Levy and I did briefly discuss the fact that Roger Altman would need to be prepared to answer questions about recusal in light of the fact that Ricki Tigert, our nominee to chair the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, had been pressured on recusal during her confirmation hearings. I did not, try in any way to influence the substance of Mr. Altman's answer on the subject of recusal. My discussion with Mr. Levy only went to the fact that Mr. Altman needed to be prepared to respond to questions on this subject. In the several days before the hearing, I also spoke by telephone on two or three occasions to Josh Steiner, Secretary Bentsen's Chief of Staff. At this time it is difficult for me to separate these conversations or to remember them with precision. I believe I initiated the first call to ask Mr. Steiner to encourage Secretary Bentsen to take a prominent role at the hearing. Again, this was to ensure that the hearing was broadly focused on our Administration's overall handling of the S&L cleanup and to contrast that record with the record of previous Administrations. About this time I became aware that Mr. Altman had met on February 2 with White House staff. I believe I raised with Mr. Steiner the fact that Mr. Altman probably would be asked a question about whether he had consulted with the White House on the Madison matter, and that he needed to be able to discuss the February 2 meeting in response to such a question. I did not try to influence the substance of Mr. Altman's response. Before the hearing, Mr. Steiner also told me that Mr. Altman planned to put in his opening statement the fact that he intended to leave the RTC when Vacancy Act term expired at the end of March.