Advanced Search
Has no title
S. America
Misc. South America
Misc. South America
S. America (Sunday school, funeral procession)
Spanish tour
S. America
S. America fishing village
Misc. S. America
Co. Inca idol
Co. Inca idol
Store signs and fronts
Nassau band
Jamaica
Jamaica
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:25:45) There was only one discussion which related to the RTC investigation itself and factors which could affect its outcome. That was the discussion of generic alternatives facing the RTC in regard to the expiring statute of limitations. On February 24, Senator Domenici asked me if there were other contacts beyond the February 2 meeting. My response was, in effect, that I'm not counting bumping into someone in the ball or debating stories in the morning newspapers. This clearly indicated that there may have been other contacts, but that I regarded them as incidental. Had Senator Domenici or any other Member of the Committee then asked me to review any other contacts, I would have done my best, Senator Domenici, to recall them. But those additional contacts after February 2, indeed, were incidental. They could not have bad any bearing whatsoever on the case. They had nothing whatever to do with the RTC investigation. But in the days and weeks following my testimony, it became clear that any contacts which could be remotely tied to the catchall term "Whitewater" could be regarded differently. And as a result, I carefully reviewed my calendar, my telephone calls, and incidental contacts with White House personnel. I wanted to bend over backward to be as complete as possible. I amended the record to include other incidental contacts, although I did not then and I do not today consider them related to the substance of Madison, Initially, there was a brief telephone call to Mr. McLarty a few days after the February 2 meeting to the effect that I was still considering the issue of recusal. Similarly, around the same time, I had a brief discussion with Harold Ickes to tell him essentially the same thing. Those brief conversations on recusal could not, under any circumstances, have bad a bearing on the case. They could not, under any circumstances, have had a bearing on the case. I bad already removed myself from any possible role on the case. I Finally, the record was also amended to advise the Committee that I had a brief discussion with Mr. Ickes the night before my testimony. I told him that I intended to announce during my test' mony that I was stepping down as CEO of the RTC, as I Id, in-deed, announce the next day. Members of the Committee, that bad nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison. Around the same time, I literally ran into Mr. Nussbaum in a corridor of the White House. He told me the Administration would soon be submitting its nominee for permanent RTC head. That had nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison either, but I 414 nevertheless amended the record on a voluntary basis so that there would be no question. Some think that I consciously failed to mention these other inci- dental contacts. That isn't true. When we were here 5 months ago, I believed that I was res ponding properly to the questions. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, in the most heartfelt way, that there was no intent to mislead this Committee. Questions also have been raised as to why the subject of recusal was not included in the February 24 testimony. I was not asked about recusal. There were sever Q's and A's in my briefing book on recusal. A team of 10 or 15 members of Treasury and RTC staff helped to prepare them. Had there been any attempt to intentionally withhold information on the recusal, one surely wouldn't have rehearsed answers on that subject with such a large group. Had I been asked about recusal, I would have responded rightly. Senator DAmato and I had a conversation the night before my testimony. Among other things, he said he was going to ask me about recusal. Neither he nor any other Member WE Committee did ask me about recusal. While I have reservations about Mr. you heard his testimony this Steiner's diary, as you can imagine, morning, it confirms the view that recusal wasn't asked. I did not mention recusal in my testimony because I did not think it was responsive to the question I was asked. Members of the Committee, I may have been wrong in this regard, but I had no intention to mislead or withhold information form this Committee. I believed at the time that the Committee was interested in knowing whether Treasury or the RTC had improperly provided information on the substance of the Madison case.
Man Planting in Garden/Misc. F
12-21 thru 12-23 combined on one reel Planting in dry soil, men planting trees, pruning. Kumquats on tree, plums on tree, plums being dried, grapes on display. Man works in his garden
Harvesting Potatoes
PREVIEW 211151 Farm machinery in field, machine that unearths potatoes for workers to pick up, potatoes being dumped onto huge pile of potatoes, workers picking up unearthed potatoes, potatoes being loaded into sacks, little kid (boy) eating a potato fresh out of the ground.
Potato Industry, Spinach, Sugar
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE 216543 CS-16-014 (14-11 thru 14-23) Sacks of Potatoes being unloaded from boxcars (Southern Pacific Lines). Close-up (good, weird shot) of huge potatoes, hand holding one, sacks of potatoes being moved by hand truck. (over) Peeled potatoes on conv. belt,potatoes being cleaned, potatoes being gathered in field, potatoes in boxcars, close-ups of picked spinach, spinach field, machine that picks spinach, workers picking spinach, sugar beets riding up conv. belt, carrots in H2O. * Good shot of man (50's) chopping side of beef, man in lab weighing white powder, celery being packed into box, workers picking tomatoes, lettuce. Processing lettuce, cantaloupes being picked. Potatoes and cherries being processed and canned. Stock boy in grocery store( good shot) stacking apples. Green beans being picked, farmer in his bean field inspecting plants, hydroponic indoor garden (lab?), close-up of pickled green beans.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:30:26) That was what was in my mind as I heard that question. I was anxious to tell this Committee, as the videotape shows, that I informed the White House only about the generic procedures the RTC would employ in such circumstances and about nothing else relative to the Madison case. Indeed, I remember saying' "that was the whole conversation" and what I meant by that was that was the whole conversation with respect to what I believed was the substance of the case. No one asked me to describe everything that happened at the February 2 meeting . Had they, I would nI Id not and I still do not consider recusal to touch upon the see the Committee my answer. I asthat it was not my intent to mislead or to Indeed, I had with me on February 24 in my briefing book a series of question and answers on recusal which I Weis prepared to give in response to questions about recusal. And I had anticipated being asked directly about recusal, just as Ricki Tigert had been by the Committee a few weeks earlier, but I was asked no such questions. 1 have read news accounts of a battle over my recusal. The total discussions which I had on recusal with White House personnel consumed approximately 10 or 15 minutes. I said that I'd been advised to recuse -myself and I intended to take that advice. I didn't say when. No one asked me not to recuse myself. Mr. Steiner's diary points out that, after the February 2 meeting, everyone knew RTC investigation of Madison. Now, of course, I Members may feel that I was being too precise in sure the Committee with old information 415 that I wasn't going to play any role in this case. Yes, I did waver on timing, but I did execute the recusal 3 weeks later. In closing, I would like to reiterate the key facts. Three separate investigations have concluded that no legal or ethical violations occurred. Three separate investigations. No one interfered in any way with the Madison case nor improperly imparted information on it. I believe that my testimony of February 24 was truthful. I hope that these points and the answers I'll now provide to your questions will satisfy this Committee that my conduct was proper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Altman. Let me just indicate that a vote has started on the Senate Floor. Mr. Altman's attorney has asked us to permit a viewing of the February 24 testimony before this Committee when these questions were asked to you and your responses, and I think it will be useful for us to see the actual videotape of those exchanges. I think we'll hold off on that until the second bells have started, until we've voted, and then we'll commence with the questioning. I want to say one other thing before starting the question period, and I want to say that in a personal vein, and I know Senator D'Amato may have a personal comment to make, too. We've known each other over a long period of years. We've worked together on other issues in the past. This is not a happy occasion for any of us, Going back to the meeting before this Committee when the questions were asked and the answers were provided, we were left with a very, I think, inadequate situation. So much so that the Special Counsel, Mr. Fiske, decided upon the basis of the responses that day to go ahead and commence an investigation himself which he did by subpoenaing a number of people and taking them before the Grand Jury. Now, we're coming along behind his review in that area in terms of trying to clear up the record for ourselves. So it has been kind of a long and winding road from that hearing, when you were before us, and we'll have the chance to look at the exchanges and then we can go into the questions at that time. We'll do so as soon as we come back. The Committee stands in recess for about 15 minutes. (16:34:52) [Recess.] (16:34:54) Commentary of hearings hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG, they also to talk to SARAH FRITZ of the Los Angeles Times and of STEVE ROBERTS U.S. News and World Report
McNamara Reports On Vietnam: New Moves Counter Red Infiltration
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara tells a news conference that the United States intends to step up bombings until all key supply lines from the north are knocked out. Showing photos of some of the 24 bridges demolished so far, the Defense Secretary rules out the possibility of using nuclear weapons. Displaying a Red Chinese machine gun, Mr. McNamara says that regular north Vietnamese troops are now in the south. Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara pointing to bombed out supply routes from North Vietnam. McNamara holding up a Chinese machine gun. CU - McNamara point to pictures of bombed out bridges. CU - The press taking down notes. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, "I can't be too specific or accurate in estimating the size of that battalion I would guess its on the order of four or five hundred men. As to its significant I think it primarily significant in indicating that the North Vietnamese have used up or dried up the source of individual fillers who can be recruited, trained and sent back to fight in South Vienam. And that they are now having to call upon the regular units of their forces for that purpose. And this is understandable. I believe I'm correct in saying in the past 4 1/2 years the Vietcong, the Communists, have lost 89 thousand men, killed in South Vietnam. Not all of these men have been infiltrated from the North, but an important number have been. And with that plus the expansion of the Vietcong forces in the South, you can see the heavy drain upon the filler resources of the North and the reason why they are having to turn to their regular military units to continue the supply of men over these infiltration routes. A supply that is absolutely essential them if they are to offset continuing casualties."
Adlai Ewing Stevenson (1900-1965)
Ambassador Stevenson belonged with those men who became great figures without holding high office. Governor of the state of Illinois, Presidential hopeful, United States Ambassador to the United Nations. He leaves a void on today's international scene, which will be difficult to fill. Here are highlights of distinguished career as Governor of Illinois; as two-time Presidential candidate (1952 & 1956); as Ambassador to the U.N. It was in his last post Mr. Stevenson won wide fame and respect.
Historic Ceremony: The Right to Vote Signed into Law
In the same chamber where President Abraham Lincoln signed the first emancipation order more than a century ago, President Johnson signs the 1965 Voter Registration Act & promises the assembled witnesses to end forever discrimination at the polls. (National Voting Rights Act of 1965) Washington DC US Capitol Building, cars in parking lot in FG. President Lyndon Baines Johnson speaking to group in Capitol rotunda. Rear view statue in silhouette, light beaming through windows lining dome. CU frieze of Abraham Lincoln in rotunda. Statue of Abe Lincoln. Civil rights leader Roy Wilkins sitting beside unidentified African-American clergyman. President Lyndon Johnson standing at podium, looking solemn, stern. CU young African American woman. President LBJ speaking: "This law will ensure them the right to vote. The wrong is one which no American in his heart can justify. The right is one which no American true to our principles can deny." President Johnson receiving standing ovation. President Johnson exiting rotunda with Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey and daughter Luci Johnson. MS fancy chandelier, tilt down to Lyndon Baines Johnson taking seat for signing of Voter Registration Act of 1965. President Johnson signing the bill into law. Unidentified Senator speaking with Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Johnson shaking hands with Senators, handing out pens.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:55:21) The CHAIRMAN. Let me just stop you there. It may not be a major point, my general sense was that the "heads up" comment you made gave rise to the issue of contacts that bad been going on back and forth between the White House, and that caused Mr. Fiske to want to understand exactly who had spoken to whom about what, and he then cast the net out over all these people. I believe that was the predicate that got that concern going. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, that's also my understanding. I was just reacting to the point of whether he launched his investigation for reasons of veracity of testimony. I think you are right the way you just put it. The CHAIRMAN. Why don't you go ahead. Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. I have no recollection of asking Ms. Hanson to go to the White House last fall. I did not task her to do that, using that odd word, to the best of my memory. Remember I was never myself briefed, Mr. Chairman, on the details of the criminal referral. I was never taken through it. I was never told how many referrals there were or the list or individuals named. I never had that full briefing. I believe Mr. Roelle testified, for instance, that when he first called me to talk about it, that I cut him off and said that I. didn't understand it, would be talk to Ms. Hanson, But in any event, I never had a full briefing on that, nor did I on any other case. The CHAIRMAN. Let me sharpen the question for you because we are under time limits, I will not cut you off in your responses, but I want to make sure you know exactly what it is that I'm after here so you can give a direct answer to it, And that is, she said that you did give her an instruction and tell her to go and do that. You said initially you bad no recollection of that, and I want to be clear in my mind whether you're saying categorically that you did not do that, you would not nave done that, or are you saying that you don't nave any recollection and there is a possibility, in fact, you might have done it, but just can't remember it. 417 Mr. ALTMAN. I'm saying that I have no recollection of doing it, but when I hear the term "task , " that I tasked her to do it, I don't think I would have done that, We also know, Mr. Chairman, that her meeting in September occurred in a brief aside, according to her testimony at the conclusion of another meeting, the Waco meeting, which was the reason she went in the first place. In other words, she didn't go over there solely for the purpose of talking about the matter she discussed. But the point I tried to stress, in my testimony, is that I think there is compelling evidence when I sat here before you on February 24 that I did not know of the fall meetings. And I think the facts that I cited, the numerous facts I cited, do a very strong job of corroborating that. The CHAIRMAN. Well, in hindsight now, you don't have a recollection of sending her over to do that as she recalls, you're not making categorical denial, as I just heard your words, but you can amplify that if you wish to. But looking back now and thinking about it, had you known about it ahead of time, would you have said don't do it? Was this something that should have happened? Mr. ALTMAN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Office of Government Ethics reviewed that matter and concluded, paraphrasing, that there was nothing inappropriate in those meetings. Now, I was questioned at great lenth and under oath by the representatives of the Office of Government Ethics , many hours and I'm sure that all the other witnesses were too, So I believe that its conclusion, the OGE's conclusion, should be taken very seriously, and I think it's most important to remember that there have been no ethical violations. The CHAIRMAN. No , I understand that. My question to you is, when you hear about that even after the fact, is that something you say to yourself, well, that shouldn't have happened. In other words, I'm trying to understand, going back to the contradiction, her recollection versus yours, if that bad come up back in that time frame, if that is something in your mind that would have caused you to react and say no, I wouldn't have had her do that because I would have thought that was an inappropriate thing to do. Mr. ALTMAN. my understanding is that she advised the White House in September for reasons of an impending press leak and I believe Mr. Roelle confirmed his understanding to be the same, and others who have testified or will testify will say that.