Advanced Search
Hippopotamus
02:27:55 Parent hippo and baby hippo in water. 02:30:05 Group of submerged hippos. 02:52:01 Birds-eye-view of hippos on beachfront.
Elephant
01:32:59 Elephants 01:33:26 Elephant tracks in the dust
Rhinoceros
Tape 2 02:06:56 Black rhino fighting, bluffing. 02:17:08 Good side view of both rhinos together. 02:17:37 Both jog towards passing safari jeep. 02:21:39 Rhino rests behind 2nd rhino. 02:24:16 CU Side of rhino's face. Flies are getting into its eyes. 02:27:00 MS Rhino with symbiotic birds on back.
Rhinoceros
Tape 1 01:36:50 Black rhino walks toward camera. 01:38:21 Rhino walks past long-necked bird, and gazelle-like animals. 01:42:09 CU Rhino.
Elephant
01:42:51 Elephant with egret on back walking through deadfall. 01:43:47 Elephant's buttocks between two dead trees. 01:43:54 E scratches against trees. 01:44:39 E picks from dead tree limbs. 01:47:01 CU pan across elephant's body. 01:47:26 Elephant walks past car. 01:48:14 Elephant trekking across veldt, faithful egret follows avoiding the massive feet. 01:49:46 Dusty elephant drinks water. 01:51:55 E walks toward camera with broken left tusk. Egrets follow. 01:52:41 E smacks egret away, seems annoyed. 01:54:21 LS of elephant and egrets crossing veldt.
Black Rhinoceros
(Tape 1) 01:56:26 Black rhino with oxpecker birds - symbiosis 01:57:24 Black rhino coming head on and feeding 01:59:43 Black rhino and safari car 02:03:30 Black rhino showing aggression and running 02:04:38 Black rhino fighting and bluffing 02:06:43 Black rhino fighting and bluffing and charging against almost grown.
Hippopotamus
(TAPE 1) Mother hippo and baby 02:58:53 Hippo herd in water. 03:00:09 Hippo herd on land. 03:01:00 Back of huge hippo. 03:02:16 Wounded baby hippo 03:02:31 Baby hippo. 03:02:54 Wounded baby hippo.
Red Fox 2
(TAPE 1) 01:38:41 Red fox pup (silver phase) close up - 39 days old 01:41:04 Female red fox 01:41:17 Pup (cross phase) at den with squirrel tail - eating 01:45:38 Male at den, female barks 01:46:17 Pup coming out of den and trying to catch a fly
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(23:36:03) Senator GRAMM. This is not foreign policy, Chris. Senator DODD. There are facts which could warrant a communiSenator GRAMM. I'm just going to assert, based on what you have identical said, that it would-if everything else had been except this rumor of a press leak-it would have been unethical for you to have passed on the information. Ms. HANSON. That's not what--all things being-if there was no governmental purpose, it would not have been appropriate or proper. There was a governmental purpose here, and the Office of Government Ethics has so concluded. Senator GRAMM. How do you delineate here-it's unethical to tell someone who represents someone who is mentioned in nine criminal referrals. That's a violation of Government ethics. In fact we've had a couple of people who read the actual ethics standards, but yet, if you have heard that it might be leaked to the media, it's OK Do you really believe that there is a justification for giving someone information about a criminal referral because you have heard that it might be leaked to the media? You've never seen it in the media. You've never talked to anybody from the media. You're not the Press Secretary. You didn't claim, here, you had talked to anybody in the media, or with any newspaper, that's going to publish it. You had heard-that someone else had talked to somebody in the media and, therefore, it made it OK for you to call the General Counsel to the President of the United States and tell him that his boss was mentioned in nine criminal referrals? Do you really believe that makes it OK? Ms. HANSON. I don't believe I said he was mentioned in nine criminal referrals. Sir, I had this information from a very good source and someone Senator GRAMM. Could you tell us what the source was? Ms. HANSON. I understood, from Mr. Roelle, that these referrals were going to be leaked to the press as soon as they arrived in Washington. Senator GRAMM. And he knew this, based on past experience? Ms. HANSON. I don't know what the basis was, although, as I've stated, the IG chronology that was released to the public yesterday, indicates that Mr. Dudine was aware on September 23, 1993, that a reporter was getting close to something about these very criminal 199 referrals. I suspect, based on this, Mr. Roelle had information that led him to reach that conclusion that was more than just speculation and, in fact, he was right, because they were leaked to the press, and very, very possibly before I talked with Mr. Nussbaum, because it was confirmed the following day. The CHAIRMAN. Let me interrupt, your time is up. I think we've gotten as far as we're going to get on that exchange. You've both made your points, they're there, and they've been restated. Senator DAmato. Senator D'AmATo. Let me, if I might, take you to the afternoon of February 3, 1994, when you were at lunch, and the beeper went off. Would you try to recount what took place? Ms. HANSON. I was at lunch. My beeper went off twice. The second time it went off, I went to the front of the restaurant. There was a call waiting for me. It was my secretary, who said that Mr. Altman had called, or his office had called, to say that there was a meeting that was going to take place at the White House right then, that I needed to come back immediately, and that Mr. Alt-man was waiting for me. I paid my bill, expressed my regrets to my luncheon companion, and went back to the Treasury He was gone. I was told I was to meet him in Maggie Williams office. I went, and when I arrived in Ms. Williams' office Mr. Eggleston, Mr. Ickes, and Ms. Williams were all there. The were all standing up and I was told that Mr. Altman had just Senator D AMATO. Did you have a conversation with any of the people there, then?
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(23:40:41) Ms. HANSON. I did. Of what I recall of it, Mr. Ickes asked me who knew I had recommended to Mr. Altman that he recuse himself, and I recall giving him three names. He said, "Good, because if it got out, it would look bad." Senator DAMATO. What did you reply to him? MS. HANSON. I told him it was what I would have done if I were in his position. Mr. Ickes said, "It would be better if it didn't get out" and I said, "If I'm asked, that's what I will say." Senator D'AMATO. Ms. Hanson, you said, That's what I would do if I were in his position." You're referring to Mr. Altman's recusal? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. He was not required to recuse himself. It was a personal decision. senator DAmATO. I just want to set the record straight. Did you have any further meetings with Secretary Bentsen after the February 3, 1994, meeting at the White House? Ms. HANSON. We did meet. Mr. Altman and I met with the Secretary and Senator DAmATO. Do you recall how many occasions? MS. HANsoN. On this issue? Senator DAmATO. Yes. Ms. HANSON. On two other occasions. Senator DAMATO. Could you give us the nature of those meeting and who was there? ?is. HANSON. In the first meeting, Mr. Altman and I were there. Mr.-Altman told the Secretary that he had decided not to recuse himself. Senator DAMATO. When was that meeting? 200 Ms. HANSON. I don't recall, sir. It was shortly after the meeting at the White House, but I can't place that specifically. Senator DAMATO. Could it have been the same day, on February 3 , 1994? Ms. HANSON. It could have been. I just don't recall. Senator DAMATO. Go ahead. Mr. Altman reported on the meeting at the White House to the Secretary.? Ms. HANSON. What I recall of the meeting was that he said he had decided not to recuse himself, for the time being, and that he didn't believe it made any difference, but it made them happy Senator DAMATO. Made "them" happy, meaning who? Ms. HANSON. -which I understood to be the people we had met with in the White House. Senator DAMATO. Do you remember the Secretary saying anything about that? Ms. HANSON. I recall the Secretary saying that he thought he would-he, Mr. Altman, would take some political heat for the decision, but that it was his decision to make. Senator DAMATO. Did you have occasion, on the second meeting with the Secretary, and did you speak privately with Secretary Bentsen? Tell me about the second meeting with Secretary Bentsen and Mr. Knight, Do you know about the second meeting? Ms. HANSON. It was not a second meeting, but there was a meeting with Mr. Knight, Mr. Altman, and Secretary Bentsen. I don't recall why that meeting was called or what else took place, but I recall that Mr. Altman went through and summarized the original White House meeting and the statute of limitations discussion and said that he had reserved judgment on the recusal decision. He, then, went on to say that he had ter decided not to recuse himself for the time being. Senator DAMATo. After that meeting, did you have a conversation with the Secretary? Ms. HANSON. Yes, I did. Senator DAMATO. Immediately following the meeting? Ms. HANSON. I believe, it was immediately following the meeting. The Secretary said, "That's not exactly the way I recalled it," and I said, "I don't think it matters. I don't think it makes any difference." Senator D'AMATO. You mean, the Secretary expressed the opinion that Mr. Altman had informed him, prior to going to the White House, that he was going to recuse himself? Isn't that when the Secretary said, 'That's good. I agree with you!'? Ms. HANSON. The Secretary said, "It sounds like the right decision." Senator DAMATO. The Secretary indicated that he approved of that decision and, so now, he stops you and he says
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(23:45:30) Ms. HANSON. That's what I understood the comment to mean. Senator DAMATO. You understood that to mean Mr. Altman's recounting of the original statement he made as to his decision to recuse himself, and the Secretary says, "That's not exactly the way I recalled it," because the Secretary recalled that Mr. Altman said he was going to recuse himself prior to that meeting at the White House? 201 Ms. HANSON. I don't know, exactly, what the Secretary recalled. That's what I understood the comment to mean. Senator DAMATO. That's what you understood the comment to mean. Did you agree with Secretary Bentsen's recollection that Mr. Altman had decided to recuse himself before he went to the White House? Ms. HANSON. As I stated, I don't know what the Secretary we've called, or really meant, by that statement, but I had recalled that Mr. Altman had made the decision before he had gone. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. The CHAIRMAN. I've just been trying to evaluate whether we should start at 9:30 a.m., or maybe make it a little bit later, because we've run so late tonight. Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, may I make one comment? Ms. Hanson, let me make it clear, my comments about those three clusters of issues and their handling went beyond just your involvement. I wasn't speaking, specifically, of your involvement, but just, enerally, my assessment of how those issues were generally anled. You responded in terms of your own involvement, or your noninvolvement, in those particular incidents. I respect that answer but, nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, my conclusions have to do with more than Ms. Hanson's participation. Ms. HANSON. I just wanted to make clear what my involvement was. The CHAIRMAN. Let the record reflect that. I think we'll start tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. Do we still have time to notify the witnesses of that? I We've invited them to be here at 9:30 a.m. Senator DODD. What time are we going to start? They won't be disappointed to start a little late. If you tell them we're re coming a little earlier The CHAIRMAN. I'm seeking a little judgment on that, because we're going to have our lunches tomorrow, and we're going to have to break for an hour or so Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, I can see another night The CHAIRMAN. I think you're right. I think we'd better stay with our original schedule. The witnesses are planning to be here at 9:30 a.m. We can't inform them now, so the Committee will resume at 9:30 a.m. As we adjourn, I want to thank you, Ms. Hanson, just for your durability there. You've spent a long time in the witness chair. I know this is not a pleasant experience, such as it is, but I appreciate your being here and I appreciate your staying and answer the questions. MS. ANSON. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The Committee stands in recess. (23:48:26) [Whereupon, at 11:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, August 1, 1994. [Prepared statements, response to written questions, and additional material supplied for the record follow:] (23:48:28) From tv studio NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE close out coverage (23:49:33) WETA logo, PBS funding credits
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(09:30:00) PBS funding credits (09:30:12) Whitwater coverage title screen (09:30:22) In tv studio hearing coverage hosts KEN BODE and NINA TOTENBERG introduce the day's hearing (09:36:18) Hearing begins: HEARINGS RELATING TO MADISON GUARANTY S&L AND THE WHITEWATER DEVEL OPMENT CORPORATION-WASHINGTON, DC PHASE TUESDAY, AUGUST 2,1994 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. The Committee met at 9:35 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR. The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. Let me welcome all those in attendance this morning, and invite those present to find seats so, that we can begin the hearing. I have a very brief opening comment that will introduce our panel. Then we will hear from today's witnesses. Some I know have prepared statements and after we have sworn the witnesses, we will have them give those statements, and then we will go to the questions. I want to announce for all the Committee Members that it's my intention to break for the two party caucus luncheons that occur today at about 1:15 p.m. and to reconvene at about 2:15 p.m. That's the plan so that everybody can make arrangements accordingly. Today, we have the third day of our hearings by our Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, operating under the resolution that was passed by the Senate, giving us responsibility to carry out this investigative process in these hearings. In that conjunction, we have two panels that will appear today. The first panel, which is now seated here in the Committee room, will include Mr. Joshua Steiner who is the Chief of Staff to the Secretary of the Treasury and a former Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury; Mr. Dennis Foreman, Deputy General Counsel and Designated Agency Ethics Officer to the U.S. Department of the Treasury; Mr. Jack DeVore, who is a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Public Affairs; and our final Person on this morning's panel will be Mr. Benjamin Nye, who is the current Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. Then later in the day, the second panel will consist of Mr. Roger Altman who is the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and former interim' CEO of the Resolution Trust Corporation. 320 As with our prior hearings, we 're looking forward to hearing from these witnesses so they'll be able to elaborate on events relating to that aspect of our resolution dealing with whether improper conduct took place in regard to communications between officials of the White House and the Department of the Treasury for the Resolution Trust Corporation, relating to the Whitewater Development Corporation and the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association. I might say that we have deposed all these witnesses previously I they've given statements under oath, so they'll be here today to add to that record, and to respond to questions from the Committee. Let me now ask you, if you would, to stand and raise your right hand and take the oath. [Witnesses sworn.] The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, be seated if you would. Mr. Steiner, we're going to start with you this morning. It's my understanding that you have a statement to make, and I gather we all have copies of it. Why don't you begin. STATEMENT OF JOSHUA L. STEINER, CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. STEiNER. Mr. Chairman, Senator DAmato, Members of this Committee, my name is Joshua Steiner, I serve as the Chief of Staff of the Department of the Treasury. Before joining the Treasury Department, I was executive assistant to Timothy Healy, the president of the New York Public Library.
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(09:40:13) I'm here today to answer your questions and help clarify any outstanding issues concerning contact between the Treasury Department and the White House on the Resolution Trust Corporation's investigation of Madison Guaranty. I have cooperated fully with all investigations into this matter, including those conducted by Mr. Fiske, the Office of Government Ethics, and congressional committees. Several Members of this Committee have commented on my personal diary, and if I might, I would like to make one brief point about it. I started keeping this diary nearly 6 years ago. I would write in it fairly infrequently, sometimes every 2 weeks. Other times, 6 weeks would go by before I made an entry. Indeed, some of the entries of interest to this Committee describe events that occurred nearly a month before I wrote about them. I made no effort to check the accuracy of my diary because this was never intended to be a precise narrative or a verbatim account of what took place. At times, it included impressions of meetings that I did not even attend. It was, more than anything, a way to reflect on events and draw lessons from my personal and professional experiences. Today, you will ask me questions under oath, and I hope my answers will clarify the entries I made in my diary. Since the time I first made these entries, I've had a chance to reflect about precisely what I know. I wish that my diary was more accurate but I take my responsibility to this Committee very seri- 321 ously, and I feel obligated to present the facts as truthfully as I possibly can. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Nye, I think you're probably the next most senior person at the table. I'm not sure on that, in terms of these job titles, but why don't you go next here. TESTIMONY OF J. BENJAMIN H. NYE, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, U.S. DEPART. MENT OF THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON, _DC Mr. NYE. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Ben min Nye and I welcome the opportunity to appear here today. I'd like to provide you with a brief summary of my back ground for the benefit of this Committee and an outline of my role in the matters at band. Prior to working at Treasury, I worked in Boston as a business consultant in the strategy group of a firm called Mercer Management Consulting. I left in early February to begin work in public service, and have since worked at the Treasury Department for the past year and a half. I first joined Treasury as a Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy. There I served as both the Chief of Staff, managing 54 people and the office budget, as well as a policy advisor to the Assistant Secretary on issues such as the 1993 budget bill, the earned income tax credit expansion, the auto task force, and several other policy issues. I then succeeded Josh Steiner as the Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary. I began working for Roger Altman in early September 1993 and I still do so today. ' My involvement in the events related to Madison Guaranty comes through meetings I attended within the Treasury and at the RTC. I did not attend- the White House meetings that have been the subject of these hearings. Furthermore, I did not have any phone conversations with anyone at the White House on this matter. Finally, I do not know, or did not know of the Treasury-White House meetings which occurred before February 2, and which did not include the Deputy Secretary himself. In conclusion, I would like to state, for the record, that I have the utmost respect for the integrity of the people with whom I work at Treasury. Roger Altman, Jean Hanson and Josh Steiner are friends yes, but more importantly, I know them to be honest forthright, and extremely credible. I'd be happy to answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have. Thank you. The CHAiRmAN. Thank you. Mr. Foreman, I know you have a statement, and we'd like to bear your statement now. TESTIMONY OF DENNIS 1. FOREMAN, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, DESIGNATED AGENCY ETHICS DIRECTOR, U.S. DEPART MENT OF THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. FOREMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 322 Good morning, Senator DAmato, Members of the Committee. My name is Dennis Foreman. I'm the Deputy General Counsel of the Treasury Department. I have been in public service for nearly 24 years. I a Vietnam veteran having served in the Army's Airborne Special Forces. I was with the U.S. Foreign Service for 5 years, including postings to the U.S. embassies in Beirut and Tanis, and the U.S. Mission to the United Nations in New York. I've worked in four Executive Branch legal offices In 1989, 1 was selected to be the Assistant Legal Advisor for Ethics and Personnel at the Department of State, which was my first position with ethics responsibilities. In January, 1991, 1 was appointed to the Treasury Deputy Counsel position, which carries with it the responsibilities as the Designated Agency Ethics Official. I'm appearing here today at the Committee's request to discuss matters pursuant to Senate Resolution 229. Because of my position as the Senior Ethics Official at Treasury, I have certain responsibilities. To put those responsibilities in proper perspective, I think it's appropriate to briefly review some of the events in which I was involved.
Water Bird - Canadian Geese
TAPE 1 Canada goose's webbed foot Canada goose and goslings (28 days old) Canada goose and goslings (28 days old) feeding Canada goose with neck band and leg band Canada goose flock swimming in thin ice, gold light Canada goose bathes and preens Canada goose breaks the ice as it gets up on it Canada goose on the ice Pair of canada geese walk on the ice Pair of canada geese take off Canada goose threatens a white tail doe by hissing Canada geese with young, almost grown
Red Collared Pika
01:20:43 Red collared pika eating crabs, he is shedding his winter coat 01:22:09 Red collared pika on a rock biting and itching 01:24:16 Red collared pika gathering grass for winter use 01:25:02 R. C. P. On a rock up close eating grass 01:25:53 R. C. P. Gathering grass for winter use 01:27:05 R. C. P. Gathering grass for winter use 01:27:47 R. C. P. Taking grass for winter use 01:27:56 R. C. P. On a rock 01:28:58 R. C. P. Gathering grass for winter use 01:29:43 R. C. P. On a rock giving an alarm call ON PART TWO
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(09:45:31) In January, , 19941 1 read press stories about Madison Guaranty which state that some type of civil claims were being reviewed by the Resolution Trust Corporation. I also specifically remember reading a letter from Senator D'Amato to Mr. Altman, dated January 25, 1994, that referred to civil claims involving Madison, the statute of limitations, and "tolling agreements." Senator D'Amato's letter noted that there was a deadline for action in late February. At that time, someone, I have no recollection as to who it may have been, explained to me that these terms related to normal RTC procedural actions relating to insolvent thrifts. I was told that the civil claims were being reviewed under routine procedures within the RTC. I believe I also read this comment in Mr. Altman's, February 1, 1994, response to Senator D'Amato. I also understood that action on the substance of the civil claims might eventually be presented to the interim CEO for decision, although no proposed action was yet on his desk. This, then, brought up the I he question as to whether Mr. Altman should recuse himself from consideration of the matter, even before it arrived. In late January or early February, Jean Hanson, the General Counsel of Treasury, asked me for my views on whether Mr. Altman should recuse himself because of his friendship with the President. I told her that I had not undertaken any legal analysis to determine whether there was a legal requirement that he recuse, but that my own first reaction was that he should recuse himself, Ms. Hanson commented that she agreed with me, Sometime after our first discussion, Ms. Hanson told me that she had discussed the recusal with Mr. Altman, and that he was "leaning" toward recusal. In mid-afternoon of Wednesday, February 2, Ms. Hanson entered my office and said something like. "we're going over to the White 323 House in a few minutes, Please look at these talking points." I remember scanning the points quickly and recognizing that they noted generally the same procedural points regarding the statute of limitations and tolling agreements that I had seen mentioned previously I in the press and in Senator DAmato's letter. The talking points did not mention anything about the substance of the Madison civil claims. I believe that I said aloud something like, "This is OK this is public information." I based my comment, in general, on information I had seen in the press and in the congressional letters. I did not believe that this was nonpublic information. If it had been I would have considered the matter further in terms of the standards of conduct, particularly Section 5 C.F.R. 2635.703, the Use of Nonpublic Information. The final talking point indicated that Mr. Altman had already decided to recuse himself. I remembered that Ms. Hanson bad told me that he was leaning toward recusal and I questioned whether he had made a final decision. I do not remember Ms. Hansons response, if any. My review of the talking points and the brief discussion with Ms. Hanson lasted no longer &an 2 to 3 minutes and my analysis centered on the public information issue. Based on the talking points I reviewed, I do not believe that the meeting violated any ethics regulation. The Office of Government Ethics has agreed with my conclusion. Based on press comments, there seems to be some confusion about the issue of appearance of impropriety. For there to be an appearance that leads to a violation of the regulations, it is not enough that there is public controversy, or criticism, or even a public uproar. The standard under the regulations is whether a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would believe that the regulations have been violated. According to the talking points I reviewed, the information to be discussed at the meeting was procedural and generally public. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, no action was taken relating to the actual handling of the substance of the Madison civil claims themselves. Hence, I do not believe that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would believe that the Ethics Regulations were violated. Again, I'm pleased that the Office of Government Ethics reached the same conclusion. On February 3, Mr. Altman received a letter from Congressman Leach, asking him to confer with 'Treasury's General Counsel and Ethics Officers" to consider recusal from the Madison matter. On the evening of February 2 or February 3, Ms. Hanson told me that Mr. Nussbaum thought that 1, as the Treasury Ethics Lawyer, should talk to the Senior Ethics Lawyer for his office, Beth Nolan, about the question of Mr. Altman's possible recusal.
Mexico today tails
Mule Deer 1
(Tape Two) Various shots of doe feeding in field 07:32:49 Twin fawns, 1 with spots, 1 without, eating in meadow, zoom in on one with spots 07:33:29 Doe eating 07:33:49 Backview of spotted fawn shakes head, walking in field eating 07:34:28 Unspotted fawn licks itch
Peccary
(Tape Two) Peccary herd feeding, (boars with very shiny dark hair) 07:36:28 MS head on view of a peccary, two does and a fawn trot into picture, deer feeding, peccary feeding 07:37:00 Peccary walking around, others are eating, doe standing near catcus plants and peccary comes by and tries to bite doe, peccary sniffing spot where doe was 07:37:44 Peccaries eating 07:38:10 Herd feeding 07:38:35 One peccary comes down trail, herd feeding 07:39:38 A peccary excited with bristles standing up all over back, profile, running around, smelling the ground, looking for food 07:41:44 Peccaries in herd, fighting amongst them, mostly biting, very aggressive pigs
Peccary
(Tape Two) Peccary bedded, rolls
Bison 1
(Tape One) Bison bull in light snowfall, calling, 11:29:29 Bison cow feeding 11:30:11 Huge bison bull looking for estrus cow 11:31:23 Bison flehmening
Bison 1
(Tape One) Huge bison bull chews cud, close-up's of eye, jaw
Bison 1
(Tape One) Herd, bull smells cow, flehmens 11:35:55 Cow lies down 11:36:13 Big bull drinks
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(09:50:15) I talked to Ms. Nolan on February 4, and informed her that Treasury, RTC, and OGE were going to undertake the legal analysis related to recusal. I also informed her that I was only going to discuss procedure and that I bad no knowledge about any of the Substantive issues related to Madison. Ms. Nolan's notes indicate that we had a similar phone conversation on February 9. The only comment I remember Ms. Nolan mak- 324 ing on this subject was that the conclusion could become a precedent for similar circumstances in the future. Later on February 4, 1 went to the Office of Government Ethics and had a similar conversation with Mr. Campbell, the Deputy Director, and Gary Davis, the General Counsel. I noted again that I had no know ledge of the substance of the civil claims relating to Madison, explained the procedural framework and said that I had informed Ms. Nolan that we were going to analyze the, legal issues with OGE and RTC ethics officials. The OGE officials said they would work with Treasury and the RTC on the question. A few days later, Mr. Altman, Ms. Hanson, Ellen Kulka, RTC's General Counsel, and Arthur Kusinski, RTC's Senior Ethics Official, and I met with Mr. Altman to discuss the recusal issue, Mr. Altman directed us to ensure that our legal research and analysis was complete, thorough, and accurate, or words to that effect. In the following days, I worked on and concurred in the legal analysis and ethics opinion that was sent to Mr. Altman on February 18, 1994, by Mr. Kusinski. The Office of Government Ethics also concurred in that opinion. In essence that opinion said that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Altman recuse himself from Madison-related matters. I sent Mr. Kusinski's memorandum, with my own cover note, reiterating my concurrence to Mr. Altman on February 23, to ensure that there was no doubt about Treasury, RTC, and GE consensus on this issue. I believe there is another source of confusion in the public discussion about these meetings. Do they present issues of "ethics" or questions of "judgment." The word "unethical" has a connotation of something improper. The word "judgment" goes to the subjective reasoning power of human beings and possible human error, NOT improper behavior. In my years as an ethics lawyer, I have always said to Federal employees that if they check with us about some proposed action, and give us information about the context, and if we don't object to the activity, then criticism for the ethics call should shift to the ethics lawyer. For the February 2 meeting talking points, that ethics lawyer is me. I had an opportunity to object to the meeting, but didn't do so. I didn't object because there was nothing objectionable, in my view. It is not only unfair but inaccurate to criticize Mr. Altman or Ms. Hanson for doing something "unethical" in relation to the February meeting. That is my responsibility. That leaves the issue of judgment. As I noted before, I suggest that this be analyzed as a question of human reasoning power rather than one of improper behavior. Finally, one more comment. In my experience, ethics issues arise all the time in Federal agencies, both as considerations in decisionmaking and in connection with financial disclosure and other requirements applicable to officials appointed by the President. Secretary Bentsen introduced me to his new staff on the morning of January 21, 1993, and turned that first staff meeting over to me for a 90-minute seminar on Government ethics. The Secretary made it clear that ethical considerations were a matter of great importance for him. Based on my frequent inter 325 action with the senior officials at Treasury for the last 18 months, I believe that those officials have worked hard to conform to the many complex ethics rules applicable to senior officials. I have the highest regard for their ability, integrity, and professionalism, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to respond to any questions from the Committee. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Foreman. Mr. DeVore, do you have a statement? COMMENT OF JACK DeVORE, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, DC Mr. DEVORE. I do not, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Then we'll start with the question periods. I'm going to try today to keep within our time. I know there's a tendency to run over a bit, but I'm going to try to watch that very closely. I'm going to start by staying within the time myself in my first round here. Mr. Steiner, I want to start with the diary that you kept, I think it is an important document. You were the Special Assistant to Roger Altman from January until August, 1993. Then you became Chief of Staff to Secretary Bentsen, and that's a position you still hold. Is that right?