Advanced Search
1982 - LAWMAKERS - Illinois Primary
Adult Caucasian man interviews Robert Critton, Chairman of the Kane County Republican Committee; Paul Duke (o/s) adds that the redistricting has also made the local party officials uncomfortable with both candidates tugging for their support. Critton does his best to compliment both candidates. U.S. House Representative Edward Derwinski (R-IL) speaks at Park Forest Rotary Club. Rep. George O'Brien (R-IL) speaking at campaign event; menorah in BG, adult Caucasian men and women seated in FG. Duke (o/s) says both candidates are abiding by U.S. President Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Do not speak ill of another Republican". Rep. O'Brien speaking on the difficulty of campaign against someone you like, so he focuses on his positive qualities. Rep. Derwinski voices the same sentiments. Reps. Derwinski and O'Brien shaking hands; Duke notes that the loser will likely receive a federal appointment from the White House.
1982 - LAWMAKERS - Tax Breaks and Racial Discrimination in Schools
U.S. Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) chairing a Senate Finance Committee Hearing, stating that the more he looks into the issue of tax exemptions and schools, the more difficult it becomes. Sarcastically, while he appreciates the White House sending him the bill, he's not sure he's willing to send anything back to the White House. Adult Caucasian man speaking to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY). Sen. David Boren (D-OK) speaking, pressing the Reagan administration's commitment to civil rights. Deputy Treasury Secretary R.T. McNamar testifying at hearing, taking full responsibility, since he was out of town, for the manner in which implementation of tax exemptions for schools that do not prohibit racial discrimination took place; adult Caucasian men sitting with him. Sen. Moynihan appreciates his accountability, but notes that nowhere in his two page statement is the administration's repudiation of racial discrimination. POV of hearing from behind dais; door closing.
Budget Reconciliation Act 1981 Debate
U.S. Representative Phil Gramm (D-TX) continues his remarks on the rule question where, in his view, the Committee took the President's proposed package, threw two-thirds of it away, kept a third, but has altered that third in several ways from its original form and purpose. Gramm: "Don't be deceived. The issue here today is not the whole package versus a fragmented vote. The issue here is circumvention of the democratic process. And don't think we're going to be able to go back home and say we wanted to vote in its parts, because that's not the way the rule does it. What this rule does is destroy our opportunity to work the people's will. I ask you to vote against the previous question and against the rule, and for Gramm-Latta when it's introduced not because the President's for it, not because the American people support it, not because fair play and the democratic process dictate that two hundred members of this body get an opportunity to have their package voted on, but because it's right..." Rep. Gramm leaves the House floor; Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill (D-MA) seated at Speakers platform, adult Caucasian male and female clerks seated below him.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Professor Hill, you testified that you drew an inference that Judge Thomas might want you to look at pornographic films, but you told the FBI specifically that he never asked you to watch the films. Is that correct? Professor Anita Hill. He never said, "Let's go to my apartment and watch films," or "go to my house and watch films." He did say, "You ought to see this material." Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). But when you testified that, as I wrote it down, "We ought to look at pornographic movies together," that was an expression of what was in your mind when he - Professor Anita Hill. That was the inference that I drew, yes. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). The inference, so he-- Professor Anita Hill. With his pressing me for social engagements, yes. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). That that was something he might have wanted you to do, but the fact is, flatly, he never asked you to look at pornographic movies with him. Professor Anita Hill. With him? No, he did not. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Will the Senator yield for one moment for a point of clarification? Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). I would rather not. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). To determine whether or not the witness ever saw the FBI report. Does she know what was stated by the FBI about her comments? Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Well, Mr. Chairman, I am asking her about what she said to the FBI. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). I understand. I am just asking that. Have you ever seen the FBI report? Professor Anita Hill. No, I have not. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Would you like to take a few moments and look at it now? Professor Anita Hill. Yes, I would. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Okay. Let's make a copy of the FBI report. I think we have to be careful. Senator Grassley asked me to make sure it doesn't pertain - maybe you could continue - only as it pertains to her. We are not at liberty to give to her what the FBI said about other individuals. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). I was asking Professor Hill about the FBI report. Obviously because the portion I am questioning you about relates to their recording what you said, and I think it is fair, one lawyer to another, to ask about it. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). No, I would continue, because you are not asking her directly. I just wanted to know whether or not her responses were at all based upon her knowledge of what the FBI said she said. That is all I was asking. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Well, she has asked to see it, and I think it is a fair request, and I would be glad to take a moment's delay to - Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). This is the FBI report as it references Professor Hill, only Professor Hill. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). May we stop the clock, Mr. Chairman? Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Yes, we will. We will turn the clock back and give the Senator additional time. I will not ask how long to turn it back. I will leave that decision to Senator Simpson. Senator Alan Simpson (R - Wyoming). I will be watching the clock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Watergate Hearings, June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean
Mr. Robert McCandless. Mr. Chairman, we have one additional matter we would like to call to the attention of the Chair. First of all, the subpoena issued under your rules does subpoena all documents, so we conclude that all material supplied other than his oral testimony, all exhibits and other documents, are under the same subpoena and must be and are being brought forward in that manner. Also, we bring to your attention again Title 18 of the US Code, Section 798, disclosure of classified information, and section C saying, "Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing upon lawful demand of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate, the House of Representatives of the United States of America." We raise that, Mr. Chairman, because as you are very well aware, and others members of the committee, under a ruling by the Honorable John J. Sirica, this committee came into possession of certain documents which Mr. Shaffer and I as counsel to Mr. Dean, have not even seen ourselves; they re in your possession. If Mr. Dean is to be asked questions on those documents, he does not have a copy in his possession. The committee would have to furnish such a copy to him for him to be able to refresh his recollection. And we just wanted to make sure that this section of the criminal code and your rules pointed out how they dovetail as to disclosure of secret and classified information. Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). Well, we will rule on that at the proper time. I m hoping, I m expecting rather questions on those documents which were furnished to the committee by Judge Sirica at the request of the committee, the questions on that will probably not come today and we will handle that in due season. Mr. Robert McCandless. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina) I state myself from my study of the subject, I think that information or material cannot be classified allegedly in the interest of national security unless it should not be disclosed to an unauthorized person because it relates to either national defense or to our foreign relations with other nations. I am of the opinion from my study that there is no authority under that statute to classify any matter merely because it relates to domestic intelligence or internal security. That is a matter, though, that the committee will rule on later if it becomes necessary.
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(11:49:30) OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA BOXER Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. When Attorney General Reno appointed Robert Fiske to investigate Whitewater, her choice was pretty universally praised, except by, I assume, Senator Faircloth. who, in my view, viciously attacked Mr. Fiske in big opening statement. At the time Senator D'Amato said: Bob Fiske is uniquely qualified for this position. He is a man of uncompromising integrity who will unearth the truth for the American people. So I believe in properly honoring Mr. Fiske's request. The Senate voted for sequential hearings, and I would note that this Committee has responded to the resolution in a most serious and professional fashion and I compliment both sides of the Committee leadership for that and the staff of both sides. The first issue is the Vince Foster death. Independent Counsel 31 The overwhelming evidence compels the conclusion that Vincent Foster committed suicide, There is no evidence that issues related to Whitewater played any part in his suicide. Now, you've heard that several times. But that's the crux of the matter. Mr. Chairman, the exploitation of Vincent Foster's death by those who want to hurt this Presidency is one of the saddest chapters in our recent political history. Mr. Foster's family deserves better. There are lessons to be learned from the Foster suicide. The first is that every person needs to be alert to signs of depression in family, friends, and colleagues, and to recognize that depression is a real illness which requires professional help. The other lesson is more general. Vince Foster said in a law school address, and I quote: There is no victory, no advantage, no fee, no favor which is worth even a blemish on your reputation for intellect and integrity. Dents to the reputation in the legal profession are irreparable. That's Vincent Foster's own words. Mr. Foster was not prepared for the cold political world. Yes, there is a lesson for all of us here, both Democrats and Republicans. National politics will never be gentle, but let there be boundaries and just a little bit of respect for each human being, if for no other reason then for the children, Vince Foster's children, our children, all of America's children. They watch us, Mr. Chairman, and they listen, and the tone is too often ugly Four days before be took his Re, Mr. Foster told his sister he was hesitant to see a psychiatrist because it could jeopardize his security clearance, I'm pleased that the Administration has initiated a review into the policy of interpreting a person's visit to a psychiatrist for a reason to deny or revoke a security clearance, The second issue for our Committee regards contacts between the Administration and Treasury personnel. Here again, Mr. Fiske has found no criminal violations, but our job goes per, as has been stated so eloquently by colleagues on both sides, into whether there was improper conduct or unethical behavior. I have reviewed the ethics guidelines that apply here. We must determine if White House staff violated their own guidelines, which Senator Roth had behind him which read in part "no member of the White House staff should contact any independent agency with respect to any pending adjudicative or investigative matter." We must determine if Treasury officials breached guidelines issued by the Office of Government Ethics when they contacted White House staff. Those guidelines state that an employee shall not make "improper use of nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another." I would note that the President himself has said, "it would be better if the meetings and contacts bad not occurred." And White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, told the House Banking Committee "there were too many people having too man discussions . about too many sensitive matters." So already, Mr. Altman., lessons have been learned by this Administration. I want to state a special concern. This Committee has the right to expect that the testimony from witnesses is truthful and complete And I share the concerns expressed by Senator Bryan and Senator Gramm and others. For witnesses to shade the truth or 32 give incomplete answers based on tortured interpretations of our questions is unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, in trying to understand all of this, let us not forget human nature. In my view, the White House/Treasury contacts stem from an all too human desire to ensure that something that happened 8 years ago not interfere with the urgent task of governing. Since the Whitewater events happened so many years ago, before this President was President, why not simply keep the White House staff out of it completely. If there's a problem with press inquiries, refer those to a private attorney who is handling the issue. So yes, Mr. Chairman, there are lessons that have been learned and lessons to be learned by all of us. No one on this Committee should be high and mighty and superior about all this. No one of us is perfect, and I hope these bearings will help all of us do a better job for the American people.
LAWMAKERS
WETA "LAWMAKERS" 2/03/1983 IN 08.03.50-WETA credit/sponsor credits/title sequence 08.04.44-PAUL DUKE/COKIE ROBERTS/LINDA WERTHEIMER-on program-REAGAN'S BUDGET PROPOSAL lands on Capitol Hill, almost everyone wants to change it. This budget is more pragmatic than REAGAN'S past efforts. Also, HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE starts picking at the SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION PROPOSAL. 08.05.38-M/S ALAN GREENSPAN testifying to House Committee advocating SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION PROPOSAL. Says the government's response to SOCIAL SECURITY is a key marker to the U.S. and international financial communities of how the U.S. government will deal with economic crisis. C/S Rep. CLAUDE PEPPER in office, says the plan isn't perfect, but it's the best plan with a chance to succeed. M/S Sen. BILL ARMSTRONG speaking to audience of SENIOR CITIZENS, says the Commission's recommendations won't solve the problem of the shortfall of funds, objects to TAX INCREASES to finance SOCIAL SECURITY. Shots of audience at AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS meeting. Sen. ARMSTRONG pledges to amend the proposal. 08.07.35-shots of ELDERLY in audience. ROBERTS v.o.-ARMSTRONG'S bill is likely to be the opposite of what ELDERLY want. C/S Dr. PAUL KERSHCNER, official of AARP, says the group works with many legislators, but they don't speak for the group. AARP wants to raise revenues aside from PAYROLL TAXES, and don't want BENEFITS to be CUT. Shot of AARP letterhead. C/S KERSCHNER, says AARP isn't out to defeat the Commission report, but to defend the income of ELDERLY, who have tightened belts as far as they can. ROBERTS v.o.-FEDERAL EMPLOYEES don't like the idea of being included in SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM. C/S JAMES PIERCE, Pres. Nat'l Fed. Of Federal Employees, says the proposal sounds good on paper, but FEDERAL EMPLOYEES are less than 2% of the national workforce, how can that part of the plan really help SOCIAL SECURITY. 08.09.16-Wide shot of HOUSE CHAMBER during STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS. C/S REAGAN, praises the report of the SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, asks CONGRESS to pass it into law. C/S Sen. ARMSTRONG concedes that support by TIP O'NEILL and REAGAN means the proposal will probably pass, but he is still going to try to change it. C/S AARP director, says that AARP is going to fight to change the plan because they believe that they represent the interests of all SENIOR CITIZENS. C/S PIERCE says that FEDERAL EMPLOYEES want to emphasize that including FEDERAL EMPLOYEES won't solve SOCIAL SECURITY'S problems. ROBERTS v.o.-opposition by such groups usually kills less significant legislation. Shots of hearing of HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. C/S Rep. GUY VANDER JAGT (R-MI) asking Social Security Commissioners if a consensus could be built around an alternate plan should this one fail. M/S commissioner ALEXANDER TROWBRIDGE, says he doubts that an alternative could be pushed through. 08.11.08-DUKE/ROBERTS-discussion of the lobbing efforts likely to ensue against the plan against expectations the bill will sail through committee to House vote. Still doubt about long-term solutions to SOCIAL SECURITY. DUKE-REAGAN sends BUDGET for 1984 to Congress. WERTHEIMER-REAGAN seemed to be conciliatory in STATE OF THE UNION, but his budget looked confrontational to Congress.
July 29, 1994 - Part 1
(10:27:39) This was not -merely discussing legal procedure, as Mr. Cutler -would have you believe. Make no mistake about it: It was revealing the bottom line on the investigation. As Mr. Ickes testified, Altman's assessment of the RTC case was not public information. It was not given to Congress. Roger Altman told the White House the single most important fact about the investigation. He told Ickes and others that the investigation probably would not be concluded "until after the statute of limitations bad expired." By then, the opportunity to file suit against the Clintons would be lost. This was the equivalent of giving an opponent a peek at your bole card. Before February 2, as Altman and the White House knew, the Clintons faced the likelihood of being asked to sign an agreement tolling the statute of limitations. But then on February 2, the White House was given Altman's inside information. Armed with that inside information the Clintons could safely reject any RTC request for a tolling agreement, Mr. Chairman, to underscore that point, when Altman later asked the RTC to brief Mr. Kendall, the Clintons' private lawyer, the RTC General Counsel refused. But the Clintons no longer needed a briefing for their lawyer because the White House already had the vital inside information. So the classic question emerges: What did the President know and when did he know it? Mr. Ickes again supplies the answer. Ile testifies that lie informed both the President and the First Lady of the "gist" of the February 2 meeting, the meeting at which Mr. Altman tipped the RTC's ha nds and then bowed to White House pressure to stay on the Whitewater case, Mr. Chairman, this evidence makes it clear why on February 24 Roger Altman deliberately failed to tell this Committee the full details of his February 2 White House meeting. Altman did not dare to open this Pandora's box. He persisted in concealing these facts in each of the four letters he wrote this Committee in a vain effort to supplement the record. And this deception was tolerated by others in the Treasury and in the White House. The White House was shocked by Congress's last minute extension of the statute of limitations. The White House realized that they had lost the chance to strangle the case before February 28. Now, it became critical for the White House to control who would actually handle the case against Madison. And that explains why in the words of Chief of Staff Josh Steiner, George Stephanopoulos "suggested to me we needed to find a way to get rid of Jay Stephens." The American people are entitled to the truth about the actions and intentions of the President, Mrs. Clinton, and other Government officials. The Senate has charged this Committee with conducting a fair and thorough investigation. Mr. Chairman, the American people are about to witness a story that has become too familiar. It will be told in the words of the witnesses under oath. Even more important, we will have the uncensored, candid admissions of the diaries and documents written at a time, when there was no reason to lie. We will see if witnesses, 9 under public scrutiny, seek to distance themselves from the words they wrote while their deeds were still undetected. This is a story of Government officials holding positions of enormous power and solemn public trust, falling short of minimum standards of ethical behavior and avoiding public accountability, it's about a ring of close and overzealous political associates of President Clinton ignoring lessons of history-recent 'history-by attempting to control and influence the actions of agencies intended by Congress to be beyond White House control and influence. It's a out officials who place the personal interest of the President above the people's interest, and about lying to Congress and to the American people in order to conceal this misconduct. The CHAIRMAN, Essentially, all Members were here as we gaveled the hearing to order this morning, SO I'M going to go in order of seniority down both sides in alternating fashion. Senator Sarbanes, let me recognize you at this point.
JFK Assassination Hearings - E. Aschkenasy & Mark Weiss, H.B. McClain
Chief Counsel, Professor Robert Blakey returns to his seat; zoom out to show hearing room. U.S. House Representative Floyd Fithian (D-IN) asks how the limited sensitivity of the microphone, which recorded the assassination, and the fact that it was obscured in its recording by the motorcycle windshield, effected Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy's conclusion that it was in fact a gunshot that was recorded. Weiss responds that these factors were of little significance to their conclusion. The timing remains constant, with amplitude or strength being affected.
Washington Week Show - WW 4445 - "Immigration"
Gwen Ifill notes that Congress soon may pass a law requiring four pieces of identification to obtain a driver's license. The same law would make it harder to obtain asylum in the United States, and fund a border wall between California and Mexico. Gebe Martinez of the Houston Chronicle explains how these potential laws coming from a 82 billion dollar spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan became the leading edge of immigration reform. She explains this is the result of sheer political will coming from the most conservative, anti-illegal immigration faction of the House of Representatives. House Republicans attached these laws to a must-pass spending bill to ensure that it would go through. However, Senate Republicans do not like these provisions and did not include them in their version of the spending bill. Gwen Ifill notes the same thing happened on the 9/11 bill. This shows how split Republicans are over illegal immigration. She mentions separate bills Senate Republicans are working on to try and fix the issues of illegal immigration as a stand alone issue, but none have the ability to get out of Judiciary Committee and are non-starters with House conservatives.
Senate Confirmation Hearings on the Appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Sandra Day O’Connor continues discussing the issue of amending the Constitution to prevent abortion. O’Connor understands that the U.S. Congress is wrestling with the issue of abortion. Judiciary Committee Chairman, U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond (R-SC) questions O’Connor’s stance against a 1974 Arizona State stadium construction bill, that also limited the availability of abortions. O’Connor says 1974 was an active year in the Arizona State Legislator, regarding abortion. O’Connor says the main purpose of the bill was to allow the University of Arizona to issue bonds to finance the expansion of its football stadium. O’Connor says the bill passed the state Senate and went to the Arizona State House of Representatives. O’Connor says the bill was amended in the House to add a rider, which would have prohibited abortions in any facility under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Board of Regions. O’Connor says as the Arizona State Senate Majority Leader, she was concerned with the issue of nongermane riders. O’Connor opposed the nongermane rider added in the State House when it came back to the State Senate, and believed the rider violated the Arizona State Constitution.
Budget Reconciliation Act 1981 Debate
U.S. House Representative Trent Lott (R-MS) counters the remarks made by Rep. Jim Wright (D-TX): "Mr. Speaker, yes, the gentleman from Texas wants to vote on the parts of the bipartisan substitute, but not on the parts of the Jones substitute. Never before have so few done so much to violate the rights of so many. The reconciliation rule proposed by the Democrat leadership in the Rules Committee effectively denies at least half the Members of this House and the 110 million Americans they represent a clear cut vote on the President's package of budget cuts which total $20 billion more than the Democratic package of cuts. It is parliamentary obstructionism." Rep. Lott states that an individual vote on these proposals is a guise to prevent necessary budget cuts from happening. He does not believe this is a matter of procedure, but of substance. These budget cuts need to happen and the spending of the federal government needs to be brought under control. Rep. Lott yields back the balance of his time; Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill (D-MA) seated on Speakers platform, adult Caucasian and African American male and female clerks seated below him.
Congress: We The People 8/23/1983
Senate Committee Hearing. Walter Cronkite In this era when broadcast news has become such a major source of news for the American people. It seems to me ironic that the proceedings of the world s greatest deliberative body are not available through that medium. Senator Russell Long (D Louisiana) something the Senate shouldn t do. Now let the House do that. You have no right to expect much statesmanship out of the House. If you get any you re lucky. They re elected on two year terms and those fellas are running for re-election all the time. Senator Dennis DeConcini (D Arizona) I have to disagree that there s no statesmanship in the House. I think that s very unfair to our colleagues there. I think there are some outstanding members. And I think the Senator on reflection can probably call to mind a few of his colleagues over there that demonstrate great statesmanship on or off television. Senator Russell Long (D Louisiana) Well that s a big misunderstanding. Let me say this. We get a lot more statesmanship over there than we have any right to expect.
JFK Assassination Hearings - E. Aschkenasy & Mark Weiss, H.B. McClain
U.S. House Representative Robert Edgar (D-PA): "But would it be your expert opinion that Dr. James Barger would be able to have described and looked at the number of muzzle blasts?" Ernest Aschkenasy doesn't understand the question, so Rep. Edgar tries to clarify his question about muzzle blasts. Aschkenasy notes that representations of muzzle blasts will not looking the same because of the orientation relative to the sound source. Rep. Floyd Fithian (D-IN) requests clarifications between shock wave and muzzle blasts. Aschenasy say shock waves produces its own echo pattern.
LAWMAKERS
Shot of Rep. HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA) in House Committee, in office. WAXMAN says that the CLEAN AIR ACT needs to be fine-tuned, but not gutted, so he delayed consideration of the new Act. ROBERTS v.o.-WAXMAN hoped that delaying until an ELECTION YEAR would make it hard for Congress to vote in favor of pollution and give ENVIRONMENTAL LOBBYISTS time to mount a campaign, but this failed. Shot of PHIL GRAMM (D-TX) in office, discussing the DINGELL/GUT THE ACT coalition's breakdown. Shots of Committee hearing. ROBERTS v.o.-the DINGELL plan fell apart over provisions to loosen pollution restrictions in areas that have clean air [brilliant idea-let's make sure that every part of the U.S. gets equally polluted by encouraging industries to move into clean places]. Rep. TIM WIRTH (D-CO) in office, says that the gutting interests made their bill too broad, and ultimately the proponents of a tough CLEAN AIR ACT were able to frame the issue as a vote for or against clean air.
Congressional Hearing - Alexander Haig
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, U.S. Representative Clement J. Zablocki (D-WI) calls the committee to order. Representative Zablocki opens a hearing related to east-west relations. Zablocki welcomes U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig. Zeblocki discusses the unsettling U.S.-Soviet relationship; citing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the martial law situation in Poland, and Soviet-Cuban activities in Central America. Zablocki discusses U.S. foreign policy issues in the Middle East. Zablocki mentions European criticism of U.S. foreign policy. Zablocki points out that sanctions were placed on the Soviet Union in response to Poland, but in 1981 U.S. President Ronald Regan’s Administration lifted the grain embargo on the Soviet Union. The Regan Administration lifted the embargo despite the Soviet’s continued occupation of Afghanistan. Zablocki says the U.S. is increasing military assistance and sales, while decreasing humanitarian and development assistance. Zablocki discusses speculations that military assistance and arms transfers are playing too large a role in U.S. foreign relations. Zablocki hopes that Secretary Haig will address U.S.-Soviet relations.
President Carter : Gas Rationing Plan
U.S. President Jimmy Carter speaks on Gas Rationing Plan: "It's not easy to vote for a rationing plan. I understand this. But, the tough votes are never easy. The nation's attention will properly be focused on the House Commerce Committee tomorrow, and I urge the members of that committee to place responsibility for the nation's well-being above all other concerns, and to vote to approve the standby rationing plan. I also urge the Congress to pass the three other standby energy conservation plans that I submitted last month. I'm particularly concerned about the possibility that the standby plan for gasoline conservation might be killed. This plan would be implemented only in the States that fail to develop their own plans for conserving gasoline, and then only in case there are severe shortages. But, we face the possibility of gasoline shortages even as early as this summer, and common sense tells us both that my administration and the Congress must do our part if we are to be ready."
LAWMAKERS
20.15.25-Discussion of "LAME DUCK CONGRESS". MICHEL says he was distressed at the very prospect, lame duck sessions never get anything done, jokes that he'd support an Amendment to bar them. Discussion of the Committee System-does it split up power in too many committees? MICHEL says it does, and if REPUBLICANS had a chance to write the rules, they'd limit the number of subcommittees and change rules to get more members in the floor for debate. Committee system results in not getting much done, but it doesn't look like there will be reforms. Says that TIP O'NEILL is going too far in amassing "autocratic power" in Congress by changing House rules. He'd like a crack at being a Majority party leader. 20.19.10-Ahead for the 98th Congress-MICHEL says Congress will be more LIBERAL, it will be harder to build COALITIONS for REAGAN'S policies-REPUBLICANS even have more moderates and fewer conservatives in House. Says DEMOCRATS are obligated, with their 103 seat margin, to come up with positive proposals of their own if they don't like REAGAN'S ideas. The governing coalition will shift away from the right. REPUBLICANS have their work cut out for them. MICHEL says that he has been invited to go to Salt Lake City to conduct the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, a longtime dream of his. 20.21.49-DUKE-wraps up/signs off Closing credits/transcript order information/WETA credit/sponsor credits/PBS ID 20.24.33--OUT
Excerpt from Presdent Richard Nixon Address to the Nation About the Watergate Investigations.
President Richard Nixon: "Until March of this year, I remained convinced that the denials were true and that the charges of involvement by members of the White House Staff were false. The comments I made during this period, and the comments made by my Press Secretary in my behalf, were based on the information provided to us at the time we made those comments. However, new information then came to me which persuaded me that there was a real possibility that some of these charges were true, and suggesting further that there had been an effort to conceal the facts both from the public, from you, and from me. As a result, on March 21, I personally assumed the responsibility for coordinating intensive new inquiries into the matter, and I personally ordered those conducting the investigations to get all the facts and to report them directly to me, right here in this office. I again ordered that all persons in the Government or at the Re-Election Committee should cooperate fully with the FBI, the prosecutors, and the grand jury. I also ordered that anyone who refused to cooperate in telling the truth would be asked to resign from Government service. And, with ground rules adopted that would preserve the basic constitutional separation of powers between the Congress and the Presidency, I directed that members of the White House Staff should appear and testify voluntarily under oath before the Senate committee which was investigating Watergate."
Testimony of Bernard L. Barker - Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973
Mr. THOMPSON. Haven't you stated that the matter in which the operation was carried out, the person to whom you were responsible, your former superior, Mr. Hunt, the manner in which you were taken care of financially, all pointed toward the fact that it was a CIA operation? Mr. BARKER. The methods utilized in the operation were the same methods utilized when I worked for Mr. Hunt in the Bay of Pigs invasion. This training I received with the rest of the Cubans from a Government agency. This does not mean that this was a CIA operation. Mr. THOMPSON. But was it not your opinion at that time that it was and was it not your opinion even after that time, when you were receiving this money, that it was a natural thing, it was an ordinary thing? Mr. BARKER. The moneys that were received for the attorneys, for the expenses and for the family support was received in the same spirit and under the same conditions that would have been similar in a CIA operation. Comparatively, it is based on the following philosophy: If you are caught by the enemy, every effort will be made to retrieve you, all expenses will be taken care of, and your family will be provided for. This was true of the Bay of Pigs invasion; to my knowledge, some of those families of that time, are still being taken care of that I know of. And we expected this - we were not surprised let us say, that this situation would come to pass. However, there was a doubt in my mind at that time to the effect of what did it mean, what did national security mean as above FBI or CIA? And that question has still not been solved in my mind. If it was a CIA operation, only the CIA would admit this, not I. I did not need to be told what it was. I knew the persons involved. Mr. Hunt had been my superior in the Bay of Pigs invasion and I would assume that Mr. Hunt, who was counselor at the White House, had the authority to order me at that time or to request for me to become involved in a matter of national security for which my training and my disposition was available at that time.
LAWMAKERS - "Line Item Veto"
U.S. Representative Howard Berman (D-CA) during an in-office interview with adult Caucasian male journalist, discussing U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s use of line item vetoes during his tenure as Governor of California. Rep. Berman says Reagan used his line item veto less to reduce budget and more to push his political agenda. Linda Wertheimer (VO) discusses proponents and opponents to the President getting a line item veto. U.S. Representative and Chairman of the House Budget Committee Jim Jones (D-OK) says it would take 5-7 years to ratify a line item veto for the President and that doing so would still have a minimal effect on deficits.
Voting Rights Act Extension
Committee Chairman of the Whole House, Rep. Richard Bolling (D-MO) states: "The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory. Those in favor of the amendment will say aye... those opposed will say no." Adult male voices heard in the BG voicing their vote. Rep. Bolling: "The no's appear to have it." Rep. Robert McClory (R-IL): "Mr. Chairman, on that, I demand a roll call vote, a recorded vote." Rep. Bolling: "A recorded vote is demanded. Those in favor of the amendment will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. Members will record themselves via electronic means."
Lawmakers - January 14, 1982
Senate Committee Hearing, Chairman Dan Quayle (R - Indiana). Mayor of Anderson, Indiana, Thomas McMahan discussing the impact of layoffs in auto industry says it hurts younger workers with young children and high debt the most. "People who are laid off are the younger ones. The younger ones, these are the ones with the families and so forth. They probably are just beginning to buy a house, they have very little equity. Probably owe a lot of money and so forth. They got to do something. Up until this year of course, with sub benefits and TRA, they got along pretty well but that's gone now."
Congress: We The People 8/23/1983
Senate Rules Committee hearing on allowing TV coverage. Senator John Warner (R Virginia) In your judgment, has the television in the House of Representatives over the past few years raised the quality of the written law that has emerged? Representative John Rousselot (R - California) I clearly can t answer that and wouldn t pretend to that that necessarily has been the case. I do believe that the quality of debate has improved. Senator John Warner (R Virginia) But you can t make any judgment as to whether or not the quality of the legislative written word has improved? Representative John Rousselot (R - California) Of course not.