Advanced Search
African Birds II - Crowned Plover
(Tape One) Crowned plover running across dust 09:48:08 Tiny crowned plover chick running across dried grass and dust 09:48:28 MS of the tiny chick stand stick straight, profile, turning and looking, walking, trips 09:48:51 Wider view shows adult crowned plover walking in different direction, MS of chick walking, passes adult, pecks at ground 09:51:25 Adult crowned plover pecking at ground, comes back up, head at angle like it watching something above it, MS of semi-profile of adult plover 09:52:26 MS of adult crowned plover walks, pecks
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(10:25:49) Mr. FOREMAN. Sir, I'd have to look at that. It certainly raises a number of questions in the area of nonpublic information and the use of information. I don't , to this day, know anything about any of the 9 referrals, much less the 8. All I'm saying is that in terms of a possible press leak about something, and I'm very familiar with the record of the RTC, that may involve the Presidency, I think it is appropriate to notify the White House Counsel about that. Senator GRAMM. Mr. DeVore, let me ask you a couple of questions. Did you know about the September 29 meeting at the White House that Ms. Hanson attended? Mr. DEVORE. I did not. 335 Senator GRAMM. You obviously knew about the October 14 meeting. Who asked you to go to that meeting? Mr. DEVORE. Senator, I don't recall precisely who. It may have been Josh Steiner, it may have been someone else. Senator GRAMM. When you got back from the October 14 meeting, who did you talk to about it? Mr. DEVORE. Jeff Gurth, a reporter for The New York Times. Senator GRAMM. Did you talk to Mr. Altman about it? Mr. DEVORE. I did not. Senator GRAMM. Did you talk to Secretary Bentsen about it? Mr. DEVORE. I did not. Senator GRAMM. To your knowledge, did Secretary Bentsen or did Mr. Altman know about the meeting on the 29th or the meeting on October 14? Mr. DEVORE. I wasn't aware of the meeting on the 29th until the course of this investigation. To my knowledge, neither Mr. Altman nor Secretary Bentsen was aware of the meeting on October 14. In fact, Secretary Bentsen asked me, on March 3, whether I bad advised him of the meeting that took place on October 14, and I assured him I had not. Senator GRAMM. Mr. Steiner, I want to go back to your diary, and I want to make specific reference to your entry that related to the hearing that occurred before this Committee. You write: At the hearing, the recusal amazingly did not come up. The GOP did hammer away at whether Roger Altman had any meetings with the White House. He admitted to having had one to brief them on the statute deadline. They also asked if staff had met, but Roger Altman gracefully ducked the question and did not refer to phone calls he had. Now that was the impression that you had of the bearing. When did you enter that into your diary? Mr. STEINER. On February 27. Senator GRAMM. Did you ever have any discussion with Roger Altman about his testimony? Mr. STEINER. Yes, Senator. Senator GRAMM. Did you talk to him after the hearing about it? Mr. STEINER. Yes, I did, Senator. Senator GRAMM. Did you ever raise any question about whether or not his statement, that he bad only one contact, was accurate? Mr. STEiNER. I don't recall any specific conversation on that, Senator. I recall that some time after the hearing, there were general discussions, prompted either by press inquiries or by the news that Mr. Altman bad received about further contacts. Senator GRAMM. Could you tell us The CHAiRmAN. Senator Gramm, I don't want to cut off your line of questioning, but I do want to stay within the boundaries, and we'll come back to this. We're not going to let this go by. Senator Sasser. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR JIM SASSER Senator SASSER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Mr. Steiner. Mr. Steiner, let me read you another sentence out of your diary. And I quote from the diary: As it turns out, RA's problem-and of course, RA is Roger Altman-RA's problem will Probably pass when the Congress decides to extend the statute once again. 336 You're referring there, of course, to the statute of limitations on RTC civil suits and the issue of Roger Altman's recusal on the Madison question, The President had signed a previous extension of the statute of limitations in December 1993. In signing that extension of the statute of limitations, it subjected Madison to possible civil action through February 28. in other words, it extended the statute up-to February 28.
Africa III - Masai Giraffe
(Tape One) Masai giraffe picking leaves off tree, feeding closely and in a pattern, great MS's of giraffe's head selecting leaves and chewing 07:05:29 Giraffe faces camera eating leaves on top of tree, really neat, bends down and pokes head through to middle of tree to eat, looks at camera while chewing 07:07:38 Closer MS of giraffe pulling leaves off with his lips, nice shot of face of giraffe -- ears back slightly, eating, panning shot down of neck, torso then tighter view of brown and carmel colored fur, zoom out to show LS of this giraffe, tail swishing 07:10:59 Slow zoom to MS of giraffe feeding off tree 07:11:16 CU of giraffe's pelt, tail swats across it, zoom out to LS of giraffe feeding on tree 07:11:40 Zoom into giraffe's head eating off of tree, closer MS of mouth ripping leaves off tree, LS of feeding giraffe
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(10:30:53) This suggests that you and probably others at Treasury were expecting another- extension of the statute of limitations. Is that correct? Mr. STEINER. That's correct, Senator. Senator SASSER. The President ultimately did sign a document extending the statute of limitations and you expected he would sign that. Is that a fair assessment? Mr. STEINER. Yes, sir. Senator SASSER. So your point here about Mr. Altman's recusal, if I understand you, is that all of the discussions really didn't matter that much because Congress and the President would ultimately extend the statute of limitations and Mr. Altman wouldn't be faced with an immediate decision about whether to proceed against Madison or not? Mr. STEINER. That's correct, Senator. We considered the issue to be moot. Senator SASSER. All right. Now, much has been made here about the possibility that information provided by Treasury to the White House concerning Madison might give the President's la wyers some advantage in negotiations about a tolling agreement, that is, an agreement to toll the statute of limitations relative to the Madison or potential civil suit against Madison. But if I understand you correctly, you and others at Treasury expected a further extension of the statute of limitations that would render a tolling agreement unnecessary? Mr. STEINER. That's correct, Senator Senator SASSER. Well, let me just ask you this, Mr. Steiner. If that were the case, why so much concern about this? Why the meetings about it? In other words, if you and your colleagues at Treasury expected the statute of limitations to be extended so that RTC would have additional time to make a judgment about whether or not to proceed with civil actions against Madison or not, why the meetings, why the concern about it? Mr. STEINER. Let me suggest two reasons, if I might, Senator. The first is that when this issue first came under consideration, it was not clear what action Congress might or might not take. The second, Senator, is that we were aware of the on-going confirmation bearings of Ms. Ricki Tigert, who was being considered for Chair of the FDIC. In the process of her confirmation hearings, she was being asked repeatedly to recuse herself on this subject. We anticipated that similar requests or demands would be made of Mr. Altman. We were considering the question in that light. Senator SASSER. Was there some kind of effort at Treasury to withhold the truth about the meetings and the contacts on Madison? 337 Mr. STEINER. Absolutely not. Senator SASSER. Do you, yourself, feel that these meetings and contacts were improper? Mr. STEINER. No, I do not, Senator. Senator SASSER. Why did you describe the February 2 White House meeting as you did in your diary, as a "fateful meeting"? Mr. STEINER. Well, Senator, by the time I wrote that on February 27, The New York Times had run a front page story on that meeting. And The New York Times had, as well, written a fairly strongly worded editorial denouncing that meeting. In hindsight, nearly 4 weeks after the meeting took place, I considered it fateful. Senator SASSER. Maybe it was, Let me ask you this question, Mr. DeVore, You've been in the business of being a press secretary for 20 years or longer and know .something about dealing with the press and servicing the needs of the press. Now, it was suggested here, yesterday, that perhaps the proper way to handle press inquiries on the part of the White House or the Treasury Department about Madison was simply to say " no comment." What do you think of that as a press strategy, and bad that strategy been followed, what would have been the result? Mr. DEVORE. My general philosophy is, if you're going to succeed as a flak, you need to be three things. Senator SASSER. Don't disparage that profession, Mr. DeVore.
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(11:00:28) Mr. DEVORE. Well, I was there, of course, and I deal in press matters. Mark Geron was there. He was the Communications Director for the White House. I was somewhat surprised to see Bruce Lindsay, but I learned that, in fact, Mr. Lindsay handled press inquiries that involved matters that had occurred in Arkansas. It's not unusual, if you're going to have a press meeting, to have others sit in for several reasons. Nonpress people can sometimes offer good advice to press people. Senator MACK. Were you surprised that the RTC press person was not there? Mr. DEVORE. No. Senator MACK. Why not? 346 Mr. DEVORE. My recollection, from my perspective, is that the primary information the reporter who had talked to me was interested in, involved endorsements on the checks that had been contributed to this fundraiser back in the mid-1980's. I didn't know the RTC would know anything about that, whereas the White House might. Senator MACK. Why did you not think that the RTC would have knowledge about those checks? (11:01:50)(Tape #10065 ends)
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