Advanced Search
Bali- natives, ancient, architecture, agriculture
Java Scenes
Preview Cassette 220386 Java - washing clothes in river, street scenes, bicycles, countryside
Vienna - city scenes, architecture (historic), poster, military tank, check point
Parade - Austria
Village and city in snow
Austria - Switzerland - villages in the snow, cable car, mountains
Vienna - Austria - monument
Austria - ski boot manufacturing
Austria - palace
Austria - villages and countryside
'Halloween type parade"
Winter - ski fashions (women and men), snow scenes in village, product shots, skiing, ?? ski activity, horses
Winter - Austria - signs, flowers, ski resort
Winter - mountain goats, hay stacks, villages in mountains, family
Vienna - parade marching band, traditional costume, dance at pavillion, city streets, kids play, fruitland
Castle - Amross (sp?)
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:05:33) Yesterday, your Chief of Staff was here, Mr. Steiner. He was here because he is a relevant witness under the inquiry we have been required to do here. I am sure you are familiar with the diary entries that he prepared and which were the subject of our discussion yesterday. I assume that he is Chief of Staff because he enjoys your full confidence. Would that be fair for me to assume? Secretary BENTSEN. That is right. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. I asked this morning what he is paid for doing that job. His salary, I am told, give or take a few dollars, is $96,830.00 a year? Secretary BENTSEN. That is very close to mine. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is a good high salary and it is a lot more than most people in the country earn, and he earns that amount of money because it is a very important position. Being Chief of Staff to you of this major department is not an insignificant job, as you know best. Yesterday, when we questioned him about his diary entries, which are obviously embarrassing to him, we understand that, we have got sympathy for him as a result of that, but this inquiry goes way beyond that. It goes to the question of the accuracy of events at the time, and whether testimony we were given was full and complete. That same standard applies now whether testimony we receive from him yesterday, or any other witness, is full and complete. At one point, yesterday, Senator Sarbanes importantly and skillfully had to take a question that he had posed to Mr. Steiner, which Mr. Steiner answered in a very, I thought, oblique and less than complete and candid way, and Senator Sarbanes had to take and shave down the conditions that were being put in Mr. Steiner's answer. After he had done so on at least two occasions, the answer turned, in effect, from a yes to a no. I mean, it completely changed the answer that was being given. I came away from it with the feeling that it reminded me too much of what I think happened here on February 24th in terms of there being less than a full, direct, blunt, candid answer. I realize that there are a lot of reasons why that could be difficult to do in this setting, but that does not justify it, and espe- 11 cially for any high ranking official, whatever their age, who carries the kind of responsibilities that people carry. I say it because I just cite that as an example, not to zero in on him per se, but to cite that as an example that is as recent as yesterday, that I would like to have an assurance that in the future, and I think the only person that can give that signal and have it really resonate is you, not us, that any other Treasury official that comes before this Committee, either now or in the future, when they are asked direct questions, give direct, full, complete answers right then on the spot. It has always been my experience that that has been your standard. I have never seen you operate any other way. I would like an assurance that that is going to be a clear signal that anybody that comes in here representing the Department in the future will also follow. Secretary BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, that certainly is my intention and certainly my direction to anyone representing Treasury. I might tell you what our own counsel told me insofar as answers. I said, do you have any suggestions? And he said, yes. Speak with candor, and clarity, and do not guess. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator DAmato. Senator D'AMATO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I note, looking at the Inspector General's report, that it did not address the issue of whether or not Mr. Altman was fully candid with the Congress. Yesterday, it emerged that at least 6 witnesses who have either testified or have given depositions have contradicted Mr. Altman on key facts, Mr. Altman indicates, himself, that he was not fully forthcoming as it relates to the testimony he gave on the 24th.
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:10:38) I think that is why it took as long as it did to attempt to get the record to even reflect the events that transpired. Was there an additional meeting that we should have been told about? Were there additional contacts that we should have been told about, given the questions that were asked by the various Members to Mr. Altman on the 24th? I think that it was painful to finally get him to the point where he admitted that there was a meeting on February 3rd. Yes, the issue of recusal was something that was discussed and was at least of some significance even though, at times, Mr. Altman did not want to admit that recusal had any relevance to the Whitewater matter. I mean, I still find that troubling, perplexing, and interesting, that you could maintain, or that he attempted to maintain, and does, that the issue of recusal had nothing to do with Whitewater. Well, what was it about? Of course, it was about his relationship with the Clintons and whether or not that placed him in an untenable position. Clearly it did. Having said that, the contradictions that I will allude to and will send to you in some detail, are Mrs. Hanson's contradiction as it relates to her instructions to brief White House officials. 12 Question. Would she go on her own to brief Bernie Nussbaum? We have her version, which I believe is substantiated. Mr. Altman does not believe he did that. He says he did not do it. Mr. Roelle testifies and this is the second contradiction that Altman told Hanson, he told her to brief Bernie on October 6th, and two that Roelle notified Altman about these referrals. Then we have a third contradiction. Mr. Ickes about details of the meeting. I am not going to ask you to respond to these, so do not worry about that, nor to keep all of them. That is why I said I would then send them to you with some detail. We have a fourth, and 1 will try to summarize them quickly, Fourth, as a conflict, Mr. Steiner's diaries and again, I think the Members of the Committee have great regard and compassion for Mr. Steiner. Because I believe that those diaries were the best evidence of what took place. And he was pained. He was pained and talks about the lessons of it, and I think he found himself in an awkward and an embarrassing position and I wish his counsel had been more concerned. I do not know who his lawyer is, I have to tell you. I would like to find out, but his attorney, what he allowed that young man, in my opinion, to do to himself should disqualify him for, I mean, that, that was incredible. That was incredible. But there is the diary of Josh Steiner. Mrs. Williams, she contradicts Mr. Altman concerning the February 3rd meeting. Mr. Podesta contradicts, I believe, in his affidavits, Mr, Altman as it would be necessary to correct the record of March 1st and supplement, and he talks about the issue of recusal. Finally, another Treasury employee, Ben Nye, he testifies that Kulka briefed Mr. Altman. In any event, we will enumerate these, and send them to you for review. The Inspector General, as I have indicated, has not covered this issue of the veracity or the truthfulness or the completeness of the answers of the hearing of the 24th.
Plow Pulled By Ox
Plow Pulled By Ox
Waikiki Beach
Beach & Moana
Beaches
All Moss & Gentle Surf
Beaches
Complete wash-overSurf
Beaches
Shore & Surf ***
Beaches
Surf & shore at Waiaka Lodge ***