Advanced Search
Pika
(Tape Two) Collared pika feeding, runs off stone and disappears
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(10:35:19) Mr. DEVORE. It's my own, Senator, If you're going to succeed as a flak, you need to be accurate, honest, and responsive. And to adopt a posture of no comment begs the question. You won't succeed. Senator SASSER. If you adopted a policy of "no comment," I can just imagine what the lead on the story would be. White House and Treasury stonewall on Madison inquiry. However, informed sources say that criminal referral is imminent. Mr. DEVORE. That's correct. In the vast majority of cases, refusing to comment would not kill a story; it would simply leave the field free for others to fill in the story with their comments. Senator SASSER. The story is going to go on whether we make a comment or not. I think that's a fair assessment. Mr. DEVORE. That's correct. Senator SASSER, Mr. Steiner, you had a rather widely reported conversation with George Stephanopoulos about the hiring private of Jay Stephens, did you not? Mr. STEINER. Yes, I did, Senator. Senator SASSER, You knew of Mr. Stephens' background, I assume you knew of his background, as an ardent opponent of the White House. The new Administration had, in essence, fired him as U.S. Attorney. Knowing of Mr. Stephens' background as an oponent of the Lite House, were you surprised that Mr. Steph- anopoulos was angry? Mr. STEINER. No, I was not. Senator SASSER. What did George Stephanopoulos say to you about Jay Stephens? Mr. STEINER. To the best of my recollection, Senator, he asked me how Mr. Stephens bad come to be hired. And I explained to 338 him, as I understood it, there was a panel or board at the RTC that reviewed bids on contracts and that this panel or board had selected him. He then said that be thought Mr. Stephens faced a conflict of interest, given his relationship with the Administration and the fact that when he was considering, I believe, a candidacy for Senator he had said some strongly worded things in opposition to the Ad-' ministration. He asked me if these public comments in opposition to the Administration shouldn't disqualify him from the post. I explained to him that even if they did or should, it would be impossible for us to do anything about it. Senator SASSER. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Steiner. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Sasser. Senator Bond, OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Foreman, you have discussed the circumstances in which it was appropriate to share nonpublic information with the White House. If there were some nonpublic information that affected the Secretary of Commerce, would it be appropriate to notify the Genera! Counsel at Commerce? Mr. FOREMAN. Senator, the question is, is there a legitimate Government purpose involved as the Office of Government Ethics Analysis put forward. One would have to look at the situation and see if there's a legitimate Government purpose in doing so or not. Senator BOND. If there was a possibility that there might be a press leak about the Secretary of Commerce, would it then be appropriate to advise the General Counsel to the Secretary of Commerce that there was some very important, nonpublic information affecting the Secretary that might be the subject of a press leak? Mr. FOREMAN. Possibly. However, sir, if I may just add one comment. The White House is a special place. I think we can look around the room today and see the intense press interest in anything that involves the President or the Presidency or the White House. All I can say is, in my experience over the years, generally speaking, White House Counsel would like to not be surprised at things that are going to happen, including press inquiries and leaks. I think that's a legitimate Government purpose to tell the White House Counsel about certain information that has been, or is, or will be leaked, but that's obviously also a very, very difficult situation to analyze and one has to look at all the circumstances. In fact, I think it's less likely in the hypothetical that you propose that it would be appropriate to tell Commerce Counsel, but you would have to look at all the facts and circumstances. Senator BOND. I can assure you that Members of this body, a Senator, for example, who was about to be named in a criminal referral would certainly prefer not to be surprised and to have his or her counsel notified of perhaps a criminal referral..
Bison 1
(Tape One) Bulls chasing estrus cow, bellowing 11:59:07 Huge bull and estrus cow, he bellows and then fights another male 12:00:55 Herd comes down trail to river 12:02:35 Herd, pan up river 12:03:42 Bull fighting, dust being kicked up, chases cow 12:04:12 Bull rolling in dust, insect protection young bulls spar 12:06:55 Bull rolling in dust, gets up, spars, other bull dusts
Africa II - Impala
(Tape 1) 04:21:04 Impala doe and fawn 04:25:39 Impala buck and herd 04:26:28 Buck impala putting his forehead scent on a plant 04:26:51 Buck impala marking his territory with urine and feces 04:28:12 Large impala herd 04:29:35 Impala rump markings 04:32:09 Impala herd startled
Africa II - White Bearded Wildebeest
Big herd of whitebearded wildebeest
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(10:40:50) Maybe we could come at it the other way, Mr. Foreman. 339 In your job as Ethics Officer, can you conceive of nonpublic infor- mation coming to the attention of an official for whom you serve as the Designated Ethics Officer, where it would not be appropriate to tell the White House Counsel that there was some very embar- rassing news about the President or the First Family that might be coming out? Is there a circumstance that you could conceive of.? Mr. FOREMAN. Sure. Senator BOND. Tell me about it. Mr. FOREMAN. Yes, sir, if I may. I'm thinking of your question. Certainly, there might be circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to tell the White House. When I mentioned no sur- prises, I didn't mention no surprises that such a person might be mentioned. What I mentioned was for the White House Counsel to be aware that there may well be news stories about a subject in- volving the White House. Sir ~ if I may say, but I'm sure there would be circumstances where I think you said I may have nonpublic information that con- cerns the President and the First Family that should not be passed onto the White House. Senator BOND. That might be the subject of a press leak? Mr. FOREMAN. I believe I could probably conceive of such situa- tions. Senator BOND. Under the standards you've set, I would be bard pressed, and I would be anxious to hear you come up with one. Mr. FOREMAN. Senator, as I understand, I have to regret again, I have so little knowledge of what happened last fall, I've looked at the Office of Government Ethics Report. I think one has to be very, very careful about what kind of nonpublic information, if any, is passed on to the White House Counsel. I do not know exactly what was passed on in that situation. I think that it probably was appropriate to mention some things, and it might not have been appropriate to mention more details. As I see in the press reports, and only that, the President, him- self, and the First Lady, were not targets of this, They were men- tioned. I think that's a different circumstance. I think, in my own personal opinion, if people had been targeted, I think it changes the situation dramatically. But, again, I'm only speaking from press reports. Senator BOND. They are mentioned in a criminal referral as pos- sible beneficiaries. It's appropriate to tell the President's, the White House Counsel in that instance, if they were a target? That's the distinction? Mr. FOREMAN. That's a distinction that one could draw, sir. All I can do is go by the hypotheticals that you propose because I am not able to sit here and say that there is no situation involving 5 press stories, which I think is a legitimate Government purpose, in which the White House Counsel cannot be told anything about a possible criminal referral. Senator BOND. Do Vol] think it is likely, in this day and age, that if you tell the President's Counsel about a criminal referral, that the President's Counsel will keep that information from the Presi- dent? Mr. FOREMAN. I think that's a decision for the Counsel to make, sir. I noted that Mr. Cutler, when he took the position, made it 340 very clear that be was Counsel to the Office of the Presidency, and not Counsel for the President. I think that all of this is going to bring this much more to all of our attention for next year, and perhaps we would have been more thoughtful, all of us, last year if something like this had occurred. But in the future, I think we've learned something from all of this. Senator BOND. I am very much concerned about the low standards which have been a plied. It is possible, as you know. that a witness in a criminal referral could become a target, and I think that is a distinction without a difference. You have put great stock in the report of the Office of Government Ethics. You have said it's justified because of the press leak. Yesterday, as we got a bold of this report of the Office of Government Ethics, on page 6, the OGE states very clearly the fact that information has been leaked would not cause an agency to consider the information to have lost its nonpublic character.
African Birds II - Three-Banded Plover
(Tape One) Three-banded plover searching in mud and water for bugs (Tape Two) 10:40:29 Flies away
African Birds II - Flamingo
(Tape Two) Immature flamingo feeding in water, a bluish flamingo joins the first in feeding 10:42:11 Flamingos feeding, pink as focus
African Birds II - Blacksmith Plover
(Tape Two) Blacksmith plover chick walking in mud, eating bugs 10:44:12 Chick in water, searching for bugs, chicks in mud 10:45:54 Adult blacksmith plover hunting for bugs 10:47:37 Chick comes up to mother while she is walking in water and tucks himself in her feathers, brooding, two other chicks do the same 10:49:24 CU of mother with chicks underneath her 10:51:46 One chick is still walking around for bugs, mother calling (no audio), the three other chicks leave and mother goes after them 10:53:04 LS of mother standing in water
African Birds II - Black Winged Stilt
(Tape Two) Immature black winged stilt in water forging for bugs, delicate long legs 10:54:00 Mature black winged stilt looking for bugs, uses one foot to scratch top of head
African Birds II - Black-Headed Heron
(Tape Two) Black-headed heron in tall grass, CU of profile
African Birds II - Hottentot Teal
(Tape Two) Hottentot teal feeding
African Birds II - Avocet
(Tape Two) Avocet takes a few steps in water and then flies off
African Birds VI - Red-Billed Duck
(Tape Two) Red-billed duck and young, really cute scene of the young duck swimming through the water and weeds single file after their mother, a couple of black winged stilt can be seen, group of ducks starting feeding
African Birds VI - Lesser Flamingo
(Tape Two) Lesser flamingo (pinkish) with head underneath water feeding, feathers being blown by wind, passes another flamingo
African Birds VI - Blacksmith Plover
(Tape Two) Blacksmith plover chick searching for bug in mud and water, nice close shots 11:01:11 Blacksmith plover eggs laying on gravel 11:01:19 Adult blacksmith plover walks over and sits on top of eggs, arranges herself until eggs are completely covered, pecks at gravel
African Birds VI - Saddle-Billed Stork
(Tape Two) Saddle-billed stork in high grass searching for food, finds and eats, windy day, walks
African Birds VI -Blacksmith Plover
(Tape Two) Good shots of adult blacksmith plover walking on bank and feeding
African Birds VI - Three-Banded Plover
(Tape Two) LS of a three-banded plover feeding in the mud
African Birds VI - Ostrich
(Tape Two) Male ostrich walking in tall plains grass, impalas (?) in far background 11:10:39 Ostrichs trotting, one walking, then camera quickly pans over to see the other one just getting up from sitting on the ground, more walking
African Birds VI - Goliath Heron
(Tape Two) Goliath heron standing in tall grass, beautiful grayish blue feathers
African Cheetah & Leopard I - Leopard
(Tape One) Really great shots of leopard sleeping in tree, one paw tucked underneath its head, the other hanging, breezy 03:27:05 Beautiful CU of leopard's face, awake but still sleepy, eyes closing
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(10:45:24) It then goes on to say, it is clear from the decisions in these case that a waiver of the Freedom of Information Act exemptions has not occurred because of an unauthorized disclosure. It cites Simmons v. Department of Justice, a Fourth Circuit case; Medina Incorporated v. Department of State, a D.C. Circuit case, and Resolution Trust Corporation v. Dean, a 1993 case. Are you familiar with those cases? Mr. FOREMAN, No, sir, not directly, but I agree with the sentiment expressed. Senator BOND. You agree with the sentiment expressed that the press leak doesn't make it nonpublic information, yet it is a justification for sharing that information? Mr. FOREMAN. Senator, I don't think that is the justification that the Office of Government Ethics presented for the sharing of the information. I believe they said that there well could be some nonpublic information there, but that there was a le legitimate Government purpose for sharing it with White House Counsel. I believe that was their analysis. Senator BOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAiRmAN. I'm sure we'll discuss that further. Senator Shelby, OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steiner, ' just for some background, what's your educational background? Where did you go to school? Mr. STEINER. I went to Yale University. Senator SHELBY. Undergraduate? Mr. STEINER. That's correct, Senator. Senator SHELBY. Do you have a post-graduate degree. Mr. STEINER. I do in history. Senator SHELBY. Where is that from? Mr. STEINER. University College Oxford. Senator SHELBY. Oxford University. And you worked with Father Healy when he was at New York University heading the library. Is that correct? 341 Mr. STEINER. That's correct, Senator. Senator SHELBY. Were you his special assistant there? Mr. STEINER. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. How long were you in that job? Mr. STEINER. A year and a half. Senator SHELBY. In your adult life time, have you done some writing on your own? I 'm not just speaking of your diaries. Have you published articles? Mr. STEINER. I spent one summer as an intern at a magazine. That's the extent. Senator SHELBY. What magazine was it? Mr. STEINER. Teenage Magazine. [Laughter.] Senator SHELBY. Were you a writer? Mr. STEINER, I was a writer and an expert at the time. [Laughter.] Senator SHELBY. You were a writer and what, sir? Mr. STEINER. I was a writer for them, an editorial intern, Senator. Senator SHELBY. When you were at Yale University, of course, you did a lot of writing as a student, did you not? Mr. STEINER. Yes, I did. Senator SHELBY. At Oxford University, what college were you associated with there? Mr. STEINER. At Oxford, Senator? University College. Senator SHELBY. How long were you there, for 2 years? Mr. STEINER, Just 1 year, Senator. One year master's program. Senator SHELBY. Do you believe, from your background, your education and so on, that words are important? Mr. STEINER, Yes, I do. Senator SHELBY. And when you choose words, you make a decision, we all do, don't we? Mr. STEINER, I think the context in which you use them makes a big difference. Senator SHELBY, Sure, but the choosing of words themselves is important. Mr. STEINER. Depending on the circumstances, that's correct. Senator SHELBY. If we stipulate that you're a very well-educated man, Yale, Oxford, just for the sake of questioning here, your diaries that we've been referring to, these diaries were made more or less, maybe not the same day that you bad some observations or something you participated in, but more or less contemporaneous with events, were they not? Mr. STEINER. Some of the entries, Senator, were a month after the fact. Senator SHELBY. Within a few weeks or a month, is that right? Some the same day or so, were they not? Mr. STEINER. All of them were at least 3 days after the fact. Senator SHELBY. But these diary en tries were based on your reflections of events as they unfolded at the time that you wrote them? Mr. STEINER. Let me go back to what I said earlier, Senator, because I think it might be helpful, which is that my purpose in keeping this, and I've kept it for a long time in very different cir- 342 cumstances, when I've been traveling or when I've been visiting family. Senator SHELBY. I didn't ask you your purpose in keeping them. We've got an idea of your purpose. We're getting into the content of what's in the diaries. Mr. STEINER. I understand, Senator, I think the purpose for which one does something makes a difference in terms of what one writes. Senator SHELBY. Well, go ahead, what was your purpose, to write a book? Mr. STEINER. No, it was not, Senator. It was to reflect upon per- sonal and professional experiences and see whether I could draw some lessons from what had taken place. Senator SHELBY. Have you, throughout your life, noted things in what we'd call a diary? Mr. STEINER. I've done it for over 6 years now. Senator SHELBY, Six years. You did this when you were at New York University? Mr. STEINER. I did this when I was in New York, yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. Did you do it in school? Mr. STEINER. I started doing this in 1988. Senator SHELBY, I want to refer to some of your diary entries. I'll just quote here, from 2/13, 2/27, line 7 forward: Every now and again, you watch a disaster unfold and seem powerless to stop it. For weeks, we've been battling over how RA That's Roger Altman, right? Mr. STEINER. That's correct, Senator,
Ecuador & Galapagos Islands 1 - Marine Iguana
(Tape One) Marine iguana close up 03:57:55 Marine iguana clasping onto rock, semi-shaded area