Advanced Search
City night lights
Big city at dusk
Sleeping city shots
Cities
Has no title
Dawn street sweeper
P C sign - neon
Cities, misc.
Town at dusk
Street scenes ON PREVIEW TAPE # 991875 some basic idea of these shots are: above view of street, row of palms down middle, big domed building (church or temple or something?) with a sign which says America on it vertically surburban homes
City streets
The World Series
The Minnesota Twins have the Los Angeles Dodgers seeing double as they take the first two games of the World Series. 8 - 2, 5 - 1. The highlight of the first game is the fateful third inning when the Twins need a traffic cop on the base paths as they score six runs. The Dodgers were never the same after that. Wide shot - Metropolitan Stadium filled with baseball fans and Vice President Hubert Humphrey is throws out the first baseball. MS - Mudcat Grant of the Dodgers pitches the ball, Ron Fairly swings and hits a homerun. MS - Dodger, Don Drysdale pitches the ball and Don Mincher hits and scores a home run. MS - Twins, Frank Quilici swings and brings it home for a homerun - off of Don Drysdale. MS - Zoilo Versalles swings and scores a three run homer putting the Twins out in front 4 to 1. MS - Baseball fans in the stands. MS - Earl Battey at home plate, he swings and they take it home for another home run plus 2 more runs for the Twins by Valdespino and Killebrew. MS - Don Drysdale pitches the ball and Frank Quilici swings and Mincher runs in and scores - ouch!. CU - A very enthusiastic Minnesota baseball fan really applauding. Twins 8 LA Dodgers 2.. Twins win this game
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:25:45) Thank you very much, Ms. Hanson. I see that my time has expired. The CHAiRmAN. Thank you, Senator Sasser. Senator Gramm. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR PHIL GRAMM Senator GRAmm. Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to begin now, but we're getting ready for the second bell on a floor vote. Should I .wait until we get back? The CHAIRMAN. We'll give you your full shot of time. Senator Boxer is going across to vote and coming back. If we have to interrupt the hearing, she can resume it until I can vote and come back. I think you should start and we'll protect your time. If you feel hurried, we'll give you the time you need. Senator GRAmm. Ms. Hanson, thank you very much for appearing before the Committee. I want to go back and be sure, before I get to the questions, that I understand exactly what the facts are. Mr. Roelle, who is a career employee of the FDIC, who was, until recently, on assignment to the RTC, called you-you are not an RTC employee, but you work for the Treasury Department-he called you to give you a message about criminal referrals. I want to be sure that I've got it right. Was the message that there were criminal referrals and that they might be leaked to the press, or was the message that there are criminal referrals that might be leaked to the press and that there are nine of them? In other words, was the purpose of the communication to tell you that the referrals were coming and they might be leaked to the press, or was the purpose of the communication to tell you about the criminal referrals and, as an afterthought, an amendment, or an addendum, a mention that they might be leaked to the press? Ms. HANSON. It was my understanding that the reason I was receiving this information was at the request of Mr. Altman, and I understood the reason for the call was because this information was going to leak to the press. There was a policy that Mr. Altman be made aware of information involving people of prominence or companies, national companies, if the information was going to ap- pear in the press. So, it was perfectly consistent, to my mind, the policy that the RTC was using in terms of giving information 123 to Mr. Altman, Otherwise, I don't know why Mr. Altman would 'have gotten this information. Senator GRAmm. Was this the first time this had happened or had it happened before? Ms. HANSON. The first time? Senator GRAmm. That you had been notified, as a conduit to Mr. Altman, that an investigation was going to leak to the press. Was this the first one ever, or had there been similar communications about major companies, as you mentioned, or about other individuals? Ms. HANsON. From time to time, I spoke-I spoke with Mr. Roelle over a period of months, from time to time, and on a number of occasions I was given information that Mr. Roelle indicated would likely leak, or would leak. I served, from time to time, as a conduit for information to Mr. Altman,, because be just didn't, physically, have enough hours in his day to speak with all of the people that he needed to talk to. Senator GRAmm. In notifying you of this, they were notifying you, obviously, as their way of notifying Mr. Altman? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator GRAmm. Did Mr. Roelle tell you why he believed that this would be leaked to the press? Ms. HANSON. No, be didn't, but as I stated, the RTC leaked a lot and so I believed him. Senator GRAmm. Was this referral coming to the RTC or to the Justice Department? Ms. HANSON, As I understood it, it was being transmitted from the Kansas City RTC office to the Washington RTC office, and from the Washington RTC office it would 90 to the Department of Justice. Senator GRAmm. We have our second bells for the vote on the Senate floor, and, Mr. Chairman, if it's OK with you, I'd like to stop so that we might vote. The CHAIRMAN. Then we'll recess at this point and reserve the remainder of Senator Gramm's time, and what I'm going to do, Senator Gramm, if Senator Boxer comes back and another Senator is ready, have her start with that person, and as soon as that person finishes, we'll go back to you. The Committee stands in recess pending the return of Senator Boxer. (18:30:23) [Recess.] (18:30:25) Commentary of hearings hosts NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE from tv studio, they also interview MICHAEL ROSS of the Los Angeles Times and Senator CHRISTOPHER DODD
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:40:04) Hearing resumes: Senator BOXER. We'll come back to order. When Senator Riegle comes in, be will take the Chair. In the meantime-what well do IS continue, and when Senator Gramm comes in, we'll go back to 'his time. If there's no objection, I can take my 7 minutes at this time. When Senator Gramm comes back, we'll go right back to him. Ms. Hanson, I want to talk to you about this who le issue of press leaks. I want to start off where my colleague, Senator Bennett, was going with his questions because I'm trying to understand all of this and I really don't understand it. You seemed very proud that You had, in fact, briefed Mr. Nussbaum before the press leaks actually occurred. You said I was right. lit. Am I correct in the way I'm Ms. HANSON. I think what I did was appropriate, absolutely. 124 Senator BoxER. You think it's correct. Is it in your job description to head off press leaks, to advise people at the White House that there are going to be press leaks? Is this something that you, you ever discussed, that your job was supposed to include that? Ms. HANsON. I never discussed it specifically, to my recollection Senator BOXER. Yet you said it was for a governmental purpose Could you elaborate on that? How is advising the White House a press-what you fear is going to be leaked to the press, how that really benefit our country, our Nation? Ms. HANsoN. To the extent that the White House or the President dent-because the President could be asked a question-to the tent that he is asked a question that mischaracterizes the info tion, or otherwise would put the Presidency, the President, the office of the Presidency, the Administration, and the whole Go ment in a bad light, it is important that the person to whom inquiry is going to come has the information in order to pre deal with the inquiries as they come. Senator BoXER. If I just might say to you, and I really you and believe that you function from goodwill and good purpose that if all we were worried about was what's going to put us in a' bad light, nothing would ever get done. I venture to say, it's my feeling that with everybody's ' heightened concern about all this, I don't think it really served anyone very well because I agree with Senator Bennett. If there's a press leak, a question, and it has to do with something that happened 12 years ago, and there's a private attorney that's been hired to handle that situation, why not give the advice to those who would be concerned about it as follows'? In other words, have the RTC press office just inform the White House press office that these questions were coming, and they have to do with something that happened a long time ago, and your advice is to refer it all to private counsel. Ms. HANsON. It's not my understanding that there was private counsel hired at that time, but the White House also had a policy in place that, to the extent that information was going to be discussed with White House officials that related to ongoing investigations, the contact point was Counsel to the President. So, according to the White House guidance, as I understood it, as it existed at that time and as I believe it still exists, the White House Counsel was the appropriate contact point Senator BOXER. But you didn't work with the White House. Let me talk to you about Mr. Altman's testimony because it's troubling to me that you sat behind him and there were questions by my colleagues--Senator Gramm, Senator Bond, and I may be reiterating what my Chairman said-- but it seemed to me that when you were testifying before a Senate Committee or a House Committee, and questions were asked, you bad an obligation to respond in full, not to give a tortured or incomplete answer. Now, you were there, and in your mind, you made a mental note, "We've got to go back." What does that mean, "We've got to go back"? How many days were you going to take? You knew that you bad informed Mr. Nussbaum about the referrals. Is that correct? You sat there knowing that, Ms. HANsON. As I stated, at that time, as I sat there, I realized that I had not thought-we had not prepared Mr. Altman. The en 125 tire preparation focus was on the civil investigation that was underway at that time, the statute of limitations issue, the Vacancy Act issue, as it related to Mr. Altman. Senator BOXER. I'm going to interrupt you here, if I might, for just a minute, because I think that is a tortured answer. When Senator Gramm asked his question, he didn't make a distinction. He just asked Mr. Altman if he, or any member of his staff, had discussed anything to do with Whitewater, but, yet in your mind, you only heard civil investigation. I don't understand how a reasonable person would interpret the question in that fashion.
Berlin Escape: Easterner Scales Cemetery Wall
Here is a social document of our times. At a cemetery on the East-West Berlin border, friends of an East Berliner raise a ladder from the West. He dashes to the ladder, then up and over to freedom. He has a fiancee in the West, proving that love laughs at locksmiths and border guards. High Angle shot - Cemetery in East Germany. CUS - Barbwire fence, a tomb stone and cross. MS - Guard walking with his attack trained dog. High Angle shot - In West-Germany a truck is backed up to wall and in the bed of the truck there are 3 to 4 men. High Angle shot - They pull a ladder from the back of the truck and hang it over the wall and over the barbwire, the signal is given. High Angle shot - Man is climbing up one ladder, and on to the another ladder that is laid on top of the ladder that's on the other side of the wall, he makes it over the wall and falls on to the bed of the truck. MS - Guards running towards the ladder where the escape took place. High Angle shot - truck pulls away and the man is free.
Army 10 Boston College 0
West Point takes on Boston at the Military Academy and after a scoreless first half the Kaydets get the breaks. A recovered fumble leads to an Army field goal and a miscued punt by B C gives Army the ball on the thirty yard line and they score again. LS - Football fanciers attending the Army vs. Boston football game at West Point, stadium. High Angle shot - Spectators in the stands. MS - Army facing Boston College, Boston's Brendon McCarthy fumbles and Army recovers the ball. MS - Army kicks and scores a 3-point field goal. MS - Boston punts and barely makes it to the 30-yard line. Big break for Army. MS - Army's quarterback throws the football and it is caught by the receiver and taken in for a touchdown. Army wins the game. 10 to 0.
Texas 27 Indiana 12
The Number One rated Texas Longhorns have a fight of it before they can push Indiana into a corner and win. It is not until the end of the first half that Texas gets a comfortable lead. And Indiana throws a few scares into them in the second half before Texas winds up on top at the final whistle. High Angle shot - Looking down at the football field the Indiana marching band formed a big I. LS - It's raining and the football fans in the stands with their umbrellas open. High Angle shot - The Texas Longhorns facing Indiana, the play comes into action and there is a lateral play where only a few yards are gained. MS - Another play goes into action and the ball is run in for another Texas touchdown. MS - The ball goes into play again and there's a pile up of players at the goal line. MS - Football fans holding up umbrellas, the rain has been coming down continually during the game. High Angle Medium shot - Indiana has the ball in the second half of the game, the ball was passed and it was a 12 yard gain. MS - The ball is passed and it is caught and it is a 62 yard Indiana touchdown. High Angle Medium shot - Texas has the ball and it is passed and he snakes his way up the middle for 43 yards. High Angle Medium shot - The quarterback throws the final touchdown pass to keep Texas on top of the national heap.
The Patient Is Fine: President Makes Quick Recovery
The Bethesda Naval Hospital is housing its most famous patient. President Johnson was operated on there, successfully, for the removal of his gall bladder. Five hours after the operation he took a few steps and attending physicians marveled at his rapid recovery. The operation didn't slow the President's Administrative capacity in the least. He kept in touch with Vice President Humphrey and Congressional leaders and signed a dozen bills into law. Several exterior shots of the hospital. Sign, "National Naval Medical Center. MS - Camera pans the exterior of the hospital. Interior, LBJ looking somewhat unhappy, reclining in chair, with family members around him (all posing for the camera) Lady Bird and the President's two daughters Lucy Baines and Lynda Bird. MS - The President in his reclining chair again, this time with Hubert Humphrey. LBJ hands papers to Humphrey, signs something, chats with his VP.
The Fashion Parade
With Paris and other pleasure spots just around the corner from your hometown, the question of what to wear that takes the least care is one that is easily answered these days. Permanent press fabrics are the answer. Blouses and skirts for the ladies and men's drip and wear shirts and slacks. (textile technology) The models disembarking from a TWA Passenger flight. Exterior shot - Modern Art Museum in Paris, France. MS - Very pretty shot of the Eiffel Tower. CU - Models hands - washing a Wash n' Wear blouse in the hotel room bathroom sink. High Angle shot - Two young men walking on the terrace. CU - Two young ladies one in a suit and the other wearing a skirt and blouse. men walk up and shake hands with the young ladies. CU - Man wearing a shirt and pants of a cotton blend outfit. CUS - Material of the floral print suit the model is wearing. Man's short selves shit and of course it is a cotton blend making it Wash n' Wear. The four models walk off together.
Prison Rodeo: Convicts Stage Western Thriller
Film is damaged Some men do this for money - others do it for fun, but the convicts at the Huntsville, Texas, Prison stage a rodeo to let off steam and to swell their welfare fund. There's no provision for the best riders to make the rounds of the rodeo circuit - the warden has the key to that situation. First rider comes out on a bucking bronco, and the horse proves to be a lot tougher than the "con-boy". The men wear striped prison uniforms. MS - One after another the conboys come out riding the bucking broncos, and one by one the men get bucked off. The bull riders come out and once again the man gets bucked off, one by one. MS - Wild steer race. A team of prisoners ride selected bulls that keep on bucking as they are ridden. MS - Rodeo clowns come out carrying signs stating that; "The rodeo is over and all can go home" and another sign following reading, "Except you can't".
Notre Dame 17 Army 0
After 19 years, Notre Dame and Army renew their rivalry in New York and the Subway Alumni are out in full force to see a heavily favored Irish team take the measures of Army 17 to 0. The marching bands are on the football field. High Angle shot - The Army Cadets applauding in the stands. MS - Notre Dame and Army face off on the field. High Angle shot - Notre Dame Quarterback throws and hits his man and he takes the ball to the 30 yard line. Notre Dame throws to his receiver and scores a touchdown. High Angle shot - Army passes the ball and it is deflected and intercepted by Notre Dame. MS - Ball is passed and it is taken for 4 yards by Notre Dame. MS - Notre Dame takes the ball and scores another touchdown. Notre Dame wins!
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:45:32) Ms. HANSON. Senator Boxer, I take my responsibilities and my obligations very seriously. If I had been able to make those answers perfect, I would have done that. That was not possible. Senator BOXER. But you, wanted Ms. HANSON. May I finish? Senator BOXER. You wanted to make them perfect at a later date- MS. HANSON. May I finish, please. Senator BOXER. My time is running out so Ms. HANSON. This is very important to me, Senator BOXER. Go ahead. Ms. HANSON, I'm testifying here under oath, and I would like the opportunity to finish, if I might. Senator ~OXER. Go ahead. Go ahead, please. Ms. HANSON. It is not possible, as one sits and listens to 41/2 hours of testimony and hears the words, to respond to every issue. It's essential to have a transcript to look it over. As I stated, there were a number of things-in fact, I believed that Mr. Altman bad testified to the follow-up meeting that ' took place on February 3, 1994. 1 believed it. As I left the nearing, I believed I bad beard it. I believed he had testified to it. I searched the transcript after I got it, and read it over and over. I never found it because, in fact, was mistaken. In order to make sure that the testimony is correct, it's important and essential to read the testimony. We have here now-everyone has gone over and pored over two questions and answers, and that's appropriate, but at the time it happened, I was listening and the questions were being asked and the answers were being given, it wasn't possible to focus on the answer to every question. And , if I just might add Senator BOXER. Ms. Hanson, I'm not talking to you about every question. I'm speaking, specifically, about the question that Senator Gramm asked, and I don't doubt that you believe you've been right all through this. I'm trying to give you the perspective of a reasonable person. I'm not an attorney, so when someone says, Have you, or any member of your staff, discussed this issue with the White House, I don't expect you're going to say' "Well ' I'll only answer it regarding a problem with a civil matter." I'm just trying to suggest to you that it was very important. When you prepared Mr. Altman's testimony for Congress, I note that on it, you did not, in fact, write down that you had discussed this with Mr. Nussbaum and that you had follow-up meetings with him. That would be my last question. Why didn't you prepare him for that? 126 Ms. HANSON. There had not been an oversight board hearing for a year. During that period of time the Secretary had promised that the RTC would engage in-would adopt nine reforms. There was a tremendous amount of RTC work that had gone on during that period of time, including whstleblower hearings and follow-up, the civil investigation, and the extension of the statute of limitations did our absolute one was not an There was a massive quantity of information. We best to try to anticipate every question, and that ticipated. Senator BOXER. So, you didn't brief him, in writing, to this question and, then, when it occurred, you thought you'd fix it up later. Is that a fair summary? Ms. HANSON. As I said, I had no-Mr. Altman, I understood Senator BOXER. Is that a fair summary? Ms. HANSON. -was testifying to his recollection. Senator BOXER. Is what I just stated a fair summary? You didn't think it was important enough to include in the written preparation and, when he didn't discuss it when asked by Senator Gramm, you thought you'd fix up the record later on that point. Ms. HANSON. I disagree with everything that you've just said. Senator BOXER. That's not correct. I will withhold, because I'm missing a point here, and I will come back later. Senator Gramm. Senator DAMATO. Senator Boxer, if I might, I'd just like to make an observation. That is, Ms. Hanson, notwithstanding that this was an RTC oversight hearing, it was very clear that the Republicans were interested as it related to Whitewater and only as it related to Whitewater * They weren't interested in the reforms. Let's be candid. So, I find it difficult to understand how there was this mass of documentation when we were interested-and, indeed, you knew what we were interested in and were prepared for our interest in the question of contacts with the White House. I told that to Mr. Altman the night before on the telephone. I yield to Senator Gramm.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:50:40) Ms. HANSON. Sir, Mr. Altman didn't give me that information. If he had Senator DAMATO. That's what shows it's even more incredible and incredulous. The night before I told him-he called me and I said, "We're going to ask you about contacts with the White House. I want you to know that." Senator Gramm. Senator GRAmm. Ms. Hanson, let me go back and verify that I've heard you correctly. When you had this meeting on February 2, 1994, as I heard your testimony, the first thing that Mr. Altman talked about at the meeting was whether he should recuse himself or not. Right? Ms. HANSON. At the meeting on February 2, 1994, Mr. Altman first talked about the statute of limitations. . Senator GRAmm. Then he talked about the recusal? Ms. HANSON. Yes, sir, be went through the talking points. Senator GRAMm. When Mr. Altman testified, he had before him, as I understand it, this outline of potential questions which you helped put together. The first thing on the outline-it'starts out on the question of recusal, then it talks about RTC-Treasury contacts, 127 about Fiske, about Madison history, criminal referrals, the Madi- son investigation, the extension of the statute of limitations, and prior regulatory history on Madison Guaranty's collapse. In fact, it is 54 pages, largely about Whitewater and Madison, which is, obviously what the whole hearing was about. We all know it, and, obviously, you knew it because you prepared this information. Ms. HANSON. I didn't prepare that information, sir. It was prepared by the RTC. Senator GRAmm. OF, You have seen it though. Is that right? Ms. HANSON. I don't have a copy of it. Senator GRAmm. Mr. Chairman let me, if I may, get somebody to take this over to her to see if, in fact, she has seen it. The CHAIRMAN. If you could band it to her, please. Just glance at it and see if that's something you've seen before. Senator Gramm. Is that, in fact, what Mr. Altman bad in front of him when he was testifying? It's my understanding that's the case. If it's not Ms. HANsON. Sir, there were many drafts of this. I think that this is the last one, but I can't be certain just looking at it. Senator GRAMm. It is a draft, if it's not the-tbis is the one that was given to us, as I understand it, as what he bad before him. Now, you were present when the recusal discussion occurred on February 2, 1994. The first item he had on his briefing paper for the hearing , that he was going to use on this issue, if he were asked-any, obviously, he was asked-was the recusal question. When Mr. Altman was asked, first by me and then by others, about White House contacts, asked not on one occasion but on three " separate occasions, be said that there was one-he said there was one , substantive" contact. Then, Senator Domenici asked, "Now, you re not suggesting that you had more than one contact or your office had more than one contact, are you?" Mr. Altman said, "No." Then, Mr. Altman said, "I'm just saying if I run into someone in the hall, if you see that something is in the paper this morning, I'm not including that." You were sitting behind him. You heard him say this. You knew that was not correct, and you knew that Mr. Altman knew that was not correct. Is that not right? Ms. HANSON. In terms of-as I stated, I thought that he had testified on the February 3, 1994, follow-up meeting, Senator GRAmm. In the record of the hearing, I asked him-in fact, you read my question. He answered my question by saying that tie had one substantive contact, or that there had been one substantive contact between his staff, or himself, and any of the people listed in the question asked. Then, when Senator Domenici followed that up and said, in essence, "You keep using this term I substantive'. Are you implying that there was more than one contact?" Mr. Altman said, "No." He said, "No, I'm just saying that if ou run into somebody in the hallway." You were sitting behind him. You knew that was not correct. Is that not -right?
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:55:38) Ms. HANSON. Sir, if I understand your question correctly, I understood Mr. Altman, at that point, to be answering in terms of his own contacts. I understand, Senator, going back and looking carefully at the transcript and looking at your. question, your question is sufficiently broad that it would require inclusion of all contacts, 128 whether they were substantive or involved matters that were trivial. I believed, at that point, that Mr. Altman was testifying to the best of his knowledge. As I have stated, on the fall contacts, when the question was asked by Senator Bond, I realized that we had not-there had been no preparation on that. I did not know what his recollection was. I had a very unclear recollection myself, because I hadn't thought seriously about the fall events for many months. It was not in my view, at that point, an appropriate time to try to deal with that in the middle of the hearing. It required getting the transcript and going through the transcript, carefully, to make sure that, in reading a question like the one you posed, he had actual] answered the question, because, as I say, your question was much broader than what he was prepared to respond to. I understood that he was responding to your questions in terms of his own contacts. Senator GRAMM. I'm going to come back to that. Mr. Altman then says, on three occasions, that the only subject matter he had discussed had to do with the statute of limitations. You have already testified that you knew that was not correct, because you were at the meeting on February 2, 1994. Right? You knew that the recusal issue had been discussed. Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator GRAMM. You said that. you did not pass him a note or try to correct his testimony, because you knew that he would have an opportunity to correct it later, Is that not right? Ms. HANSON. I didn't correct him, at that point, because the opportunity bad passed. I didn't know, at that point, why be had not included the recusal discussion. It could have been for any number of reasons. He might have just forgotten it.. There were, as I say, the questions and answers that were prepared to serve as a guide. His draft answer in the prepared questions and answers, that were in the briefing book he had at the hearing, included the recusal discussion. I didn't know why it hadn't been included, and I intended that it would be discussed. Senator GRAMM, Mr. Altman was asked this not once, of course, but on several occasions in that hearing. Then, when you wrotewhen the letter was written, his first letter where he begins a clarification process, never in that letter does he mention the recusal issue. You read that first letter. Right? Ms. HANSON. This is on March 2, 1994? Senator GRAMM. This is the March 2, 1994, letter, yes. Ms. HANsON. Sir, at that point, to my recollection, I still didn't have a transcript, and I still hadn't had an opportunity to review the transcript. As I previously testified, that letter was written for a very specific reason, and to give very specific information. It was not intended to be a complete supplementation of the record. It required reading the transcript in order to do that because, if it had included one piece of information and then the transcript was reviewed and it was determined that there were six other pieces of information, some of which might have even been more important, he might then have been faulted for why he hadn't included that information in the original letter. Senator GRAMM. Ms. Hanson, if I may go back to it, you've already said that you knew, in fact, that you wondered, as I recall, 129 why he didn't mention recusal. Now, he didn't mention it. He had several occasions to mention it, and then on March 2, 1994, he writes us a letter to start clarifying. You read that letter before it was sent to US. Right? Ms. HANSON. I did. Senator GRAMM. Did you say to him, "You were asked the question about subject matter. You answered it three times without mentioning recusal, which was the first item on the notes you had in front of you, and maybe you ought to mention it now that you're writing a letter to clarify"? Did it strike you that maybe this was an opportunity to tell the Committee about the recusal issue?