August 4, 1994 - Part 9
August 4, 1994 - Part 9
(19:00:56) Senator GRAMM. I offered the amendment in this very Committee to assess the S&L's $15 billion to begin promptly shutting down troubled thrifts, and my amendment was defeated basically along a party line vote, except for one Member, Senator Dodd, on your 412 side, who voted with me. That might have been avoided, had that not become somewhat of a partisan issue at that point. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Senator, I wasn't meaning to get into what you did or did not do with regard to the S&L's. Certainly you're not personally responsible for all these $25 billion worth of payments. [Laughter.] Senator DODD. I think we ought to have a hearing on that. Senator GRAMM. I don't hold you responsible for the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. There we are, In the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, I will turn to the witnesses. And I just want to nail down a couple of points. I know the witnesses have been asked time and time again, but I just want to firm up a couple of points with regard to Mr. Altman's recusal decision, and just to make the record perfectly clear, did any of you-you already testified you did not tell him to recuse himself Did any of the members of this panel suggest, insinuate or in any way communicate to Mr. Altman a negative reaction to his possible recusal? Mr. ICKES. No, I told him it was entirely up to him whether or not he recused himself Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Just yes or no. Did you suggest, insinuate or in any way communicate a negative reaction? Mr. ICKES. No. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No. Mr. PODESTA. No. Mr. LINDSEY. No. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Very good. All right. And then the second question. Mr. Stephanopoulos, in your deposition, you said, talking about the Jay Stephens' issue that Senator Hatch asked you about, you said in your deposition, and I quote, "I just couldn't understand how Jay Stephens was hired by the RTC. I thought it was a pure conflict of interest." On what did you base that opinion? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. On several things, Senator. Number one) as I stated earlier, Jay Stephens was a U.S. Attorney appointed by President Reagan in the District of Columbia. In the beginning of 1993, President Clinton asked all U.S. Attorneys appointed by President Reagan to submit their resignations. Ninety-two did so without complaint. Jay Stephens submitted that resignation and immediately went on a public attack of the President. He went on Nightline and all but accused him of obstruction of justice. He immediately began campaigning as a Senator for the Senate from Virginia, using this information. He was accused by several of his colleagues in the field of poor conduct in this matter, and I would just say his predecessor, another Republican U.S. Attorney in the District Of Colum- bia Joseph diGenova called Mr. Stephens' conduct outrageous and unprofessional "former U.S. Attorneys shouldn't be running around and politicizing cases." "Another author on legal ethics, Terence Reed, says Stephens may have breached a duty owed to the Government to preserve the confidences he obtained solely by virtue of his position of trust as a lawyer for the Government in the criminal investigation of Congressman Rostenkowski." He consistently went out on public at 413 tacks of the President. He was accused by many of probably leaking Grand Jury information into the public, a serious breach of ethics in the public realm. And he was a obvious opponent of the President, I couldn't understand how the RTC could have done this. If they didn't know about this activity, they hadn't done a thorough background check. If they knew and picked him anyway, I thought it was simply unfair, and I would point out there were press reports subsequent to that. I believe it was in Newsweek magazine where one banking regulator was quoted as saying he was deliberately picked in this case. I don't know if that's true or not. I don't know what other testimony you've received in this Committee. In fact, here the quote is. It was from Newsweek It says "a banking regulator was deliberately chosen so the RTC could deflect charges that it wasn't being rigorous." Here was a partisan opponent, according to banking regulators, being deliberately picked. Even though I was very angry about this and to this day I still can't understand it, nobody in the White House did anything about it. Jay Stephens is still on the case. I have never spoken to anyone at the RTC. So it's unfair, but you have to live with it. All I can hope is that the spotlight of all these hearings may have at least ensured that Stephens does a fair job.