Advanced Search
Directors Annual Visit To Saranac Lake
Directors of the Will Rogers Hospital and the McDonnell Memorial Laboratories, assemble on the grounds of the institution for their annual meeting. Saranac Lake, New York POV looking through the windshield of a car driving through the grounds of Saranac Lake at Will Rogers Hospital. MS - Signs, Welcome Directors, Will Rogers Hospital , Annual Meeting. Will Rogers Hospital. MS - Small crowd of directors standing around a small pond. MSLU - A statue of Will Rogers inside the hospital. MS - Unveiling of memorial plaques. MLS - Outside the hospital and in front of the building all the directors stand for a group picture.
Ted Kennedy's Last Call In Ireland
Winding up a tour of "The Old Sod" Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy, brother of the martyred President, receives a tumultuous welcome from the fold of Limerick before flying from Shannon airport. Limerick, Ireland Making a final stop of his tour of Ireland, Ted Kennedy driving in a motorcade in a convertible shaking hands with the people of Ireland. MCUS - People rushing up to the car to touch him. CUS - A little blond boy waving an American Flag. MCUS - Senator Kennedy getting out of the car walking up to the hotel,. MS - The street's of Ireland are jammed packed with people. MS - Senator Kennedy makes his way to the podium. Addresses the throngs and receives a silver tea service from the people of Ireland.
Chancellor Erhardt Guest At White House
Washington precedent is set when state dinner for German leader is held outdoors in the beautiful Rose Garden of the Presidential Mansion. Washington DC Marine honor standing at attention. Chancellor Ludwig Erhard pulls up in a limousine. He walks up the White House stairs wearing a black tie and white tuxedo jacket is he greeted by Lady Bird Johnson and President LB Johnson. The First Lady gives the Chancellor a warm welcome as he kisses her hand. The formal dinner is held in the Rose Garden and the dinner table is lavishly set. All the tables that are set up for the formal dinner.
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:25:00) The CHAIRMAN. I've listened patiently to the Senator from Massachusetts and I want to continue to. We can take that question receiving criminal referrals from the RTC. 87 up. What I do want to say, because I've tried in every instance to allow people extra time when they've sought it, is that I expect everybody to stay in bounds on that, no matter how strongly they feel about the question they're raising or how important it may be. I think -we've got to do that. Otherwise, we're going to have a situation where we're not going to be able to enforce any ground rules. I know the Senator understands that. Senator KERRY. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. Hell have another opportunity to make his comment on that area because I don't intend to be arbitrary to anybody in terms of the points they feel compelled to make. Let me yield to Senator DAmato now. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague, Senator Domenici. from New Mexico had some points and questions he wanted to make. I'll yield them to you, Senator. Senator DOMENICI I'll yield them to you. Senator DAMATO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to express my thanks to the witnesses. I find several things rather extraordinary. I find it absolutely inconceivable that we can justify making confidential criminal referrals of anybody available to anyone, least of all people who may be mentioned as witnesses, and particularly-if you might say, well, there was a matter involving that person as a witness, and that person is in some prominent position and we're fearful of the leaks, so to be fair-wbat about the other eight referrals? What about those referrals that did not pertain to them? I Second, I find it absolutely incredible and incredulous to come to the assumption that there was no harm because there was no foul. Mr. Roelle, do you know whether or not, as a result of divulging any of this information to people at the White House, people may have been tipped off in the vernacular, evidence was destroyed, hidden, or altered? Do you have any knowledge whether that did or did not happen? Mr. ROELLE. No, sir.. Senator DAMATO. You couldn't have. Ms. Kulka, do you know whether or not that happened? Ms. KULKA. No, sir, I don't know, precisely, what information 'you're referring to. Senator DAmAT0. The fact of those criminal referrals, whether, as a result of that information being given, people who would be targets, etcetera were tipped off. You don't know whether or not that happened? Ms. KuLKA. That's true, sir, and several Senator D'AMATO. That's what I want to hear. This business no one charged you with altercation you not altering your conduct, your conduct. I understand that. Mr. Ryan, do you know, as a result of this, whether or not some of the people who may have been mentioned in here may have been tipped off and whether or not evidence that may have been possible to subpoena no longer examine. You don't know whether it happened or not and I don't know whether it happened or not and that's the reason that this is information that should not be disseminated. That's why. Let me make a point and a distinction as it relates to our Bank ing Committee staff making inquiries as it related to the RTC. We 88 wanted to ascertain because there was some question and confusion as to when the statute of limitations would run. Is that improper? Ms. KULKA. The question is never improper, sir. Senator D'AMATO. We wanted to ascertain whether or not it the usual policy to entertain tolling agreements By the way, I said this publicly. I said it on the floor of the Senate. I said it to ~, Committee and, as a matter of fact, we were able to get some in information which we were having difficulty getting because, at a public , In hearing, when I complained about not getting the kind of response Be an, we needed and about getting perfunctory letters, the Chairman said "Listen ' that shouldn't be, let's get some information." is public information that people are entitled to. Ms. KULKA. Sir, early on, I bad a lot of concern about we should be responding or talking about what our opinion when the statute ran. I think ink it was Mr. Altman who kept pressing me to try to do that, to try to respond to you. Senator DAMATO. I bad written him a number of letters. As a matter of fact, I think I wrote him a letter from nine Senators asking him to be responsive. We finally got that. There was no attempt to find out who was named, what was in the criminal indictment or in the criminal referral, or what the nature of the action was, but rather if there would be preservation of the taxpayer's rights. We were told that they would handlethis case in a normal matter. Last, but not least, I'm going to say, if we buy off on the propo- sition that wherever there's a press inquiry made, that therefore, whoever it is, whether it's the U.S. Attorney, whether it is the RTC, or any independent agency, that they can then break the rules against public disclosure and go to the very person whose name may be mentioned, we've set a whole new standard, and we have no confidentiality. Because of the fact that it was two people at the White House and the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were mentioned as wit-nesses that's the last place, then, there should have been disclosure as it relates to this, When Mr. Roelle would get a question as it relates to what would happen his response in these kinds of cases is no comment. Isn't that correct?
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:30:40) Mr. ROELLE. Yes, sir. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Katsanos? Mr. KATSANOS. Yes, sir. Senator D'AMATO. If someone called you and said, "John Jones, we understand, is a witness or to be named as a target or a possible defendant," what do you say? Mr. KATsANOS. I would say I wouldn't confirm nor deny it. Senator D'AMATO. That's right, and that's the standard that should have been employed. I thank the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. I want to just inquire of Members on both sides," because I want to be able to give adequate notice to Ms. Hanson, who's due up here next, and to allow at least a brief period for peo. ple to have a late lunch who haven't yet had one, so let me go right around the table- how many people seek an opportunity Senator MosELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one question. 89 The CHAIRMAN. I'll come to you next, then, if I may do that. Let me inquire Anybody so I can see how many people still wish to be recognized. Anybody else on this side? I don't see any indication. Do you want to be recognized? Senator BOXER. I reserve my right to ask a question. I don't have an at this moment. Senator KERRY. No. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry does. Senator Shelby does. Senator Moseley-Braun, you're next. Senator MosELEY-BRAuN. Again, I've refrained from asking questions of this panel in the interest of moving along with this hearing. I have a point of clarification with Ms. Kulka. I think it's important for the record to be clarified. In your conversation with Senator Shelby about the impact of Rule 11 on your decisionmaking, it was my understanding that as of the February 1, 1994, meeting, no decision had yet been made on whether there was even a case to be made or whether to sue Madison. Is that correct? Ms. KULKA. That's correct. Senator MosELEY-BRAuN. The impression was not just a matter of whether the case should be filed or was in shape for filing or comported with the technical requirements of the rule, you hadn't even reached the question of if there was a case to be made. Ms. KULKA. That's correct. Senator MosELEY-BRAuN. I think it's important that, for the record, that clarification be made. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Thank you, The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Senator Kerry, you're the only other Member that I know of that seeks recognition now. Senator Boxer is reserving her right. Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will try not to try my colleague's patience or go too long. This panel, particularly, is important for a number of reasons to this committee, generically, and I want to cover a couple of bases if we can. I would like to just explain to the Senator from New York and others precisely why I think it's so important. I am not diminishing one iota what I think the Senator from New York has accurately raised as aver significant issue here. very I do not accept the notion that because there is perhaps a foul, there is automatically no harm. I don't accept that, and I think the Committee as I've said previously, is going to have to come to grips with the judgment and actions that ensued with respect to communications between Treasury and White House, and the terrible problem of the double hat that Roger Altman wore, one that I think many of us felt all along was great trouble for the RTC as well as, otentially, for Treasury. The reason I raised these other issues is because I don't think you can understand Whitewater and put this entire thing in its proper perspective, if we don't ask questions about the early part and understand how we got here. I'm simply raising these questions for my colleagues to be sure that we in the second round, as we go further, are sure to cover those bases. What I'm anxious to get from colleagues is a consensus on the Committee that we ought to ask questions about this early part in order to properly tell the story to the American people. It troubles 90 me that a Democratic U.S. Attorney behaves one way. It trouble me that a Republican might behave one way. I'm sure my co leagues agree with me. When I read that during the middle of an election, at the same time you had the passportgate issue that gr eatly embarrassed the Administration because of the leaks about the investigation that was constructed, you simultaneously pressure on U.S. Attorneys with respect to the criminal re that came out of a New York Times article, that came out of then had smell test begins to react and say something is here. That is all I'm suggesting, and I it say very respectfully to col-leagues we should understand that.
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:35:25) The CHAIRMAN. May I just respond to Senator Kerry. You put that issue on the table and I've been trying to think of how with the limitations we've been given, that kind of an issue A properly dealt with because I think it does pose another question I will say, because there will be follow-up hearings, that Senator Mitchell has indicated there will be a later phase beyond the scope of what we're asked here to do. That resolution that would em- power any later phase is yet to be written. It would seem to me that any issue, such as the one you raise now or that anyone else might raise, would properly be the subject for a discussion As to " what the scope of a follow-up resolution might be. I think that would be the time at which you'd mark out the boundaries of what was or was not going to be looked at in some thorough investiga- tive way. I certainly think you're within your rights to state your opinion now on the general observation Senator KERRY. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. The reason I do it is because at that very moment is when the attention shifted. What this panel has acknowledged, was a different treatment of an S&L from normal back in 1992. At that very moment ' you - had what are now known as the forgotten 50 Texas S&L's, some of whom lost $2,422,000,000; $1,474,000,000; $1,389,000,000. Some of them lost 141 percent of their net worth. One lost 892 percent of its net worth; another 216 percent of its net worth. Not one suit was brought. Not one subpoena was issued. Relative to most of those, Mr. Chairman, Madison is way down the line. If you're sitting in the RTC setting priorities, The New York Times creates a priority and all of a sudden, in these 193 institutions that were ahead of Madison, nothing happens. It raises a very serious issue about the RTC, Mr. Ryan. You know that because' we've been communicating for months. I simply raise this, Mr. Chairman, because I would like to ask my colleagues in this Committee for a consensus that we ought to be--serious allegations have been laid out by people within the RTC that the RTC is losing billions of dollars, that major opportunities for recoupment for the taxpayers are being passed up. You know this is not new to you because I mailed you on this. I think it is vital for this Committee to see the internal documental tion of the RTC with respect to that issue, and I simply want to put that in front of the Committee. I know it's outside of this, but it is not really outside of this. It is very much central to what has happened here, and my hope is that the Committee will press that issue with the RTC. My hope is that we can have the documentation of Mr. Ryan. 91 The CHAMMAN. I want to indicate, after we've heard from Sen ator Boxer, unless we open a whole new direction here, that I think we're within 5 minutes of finishing with this panel, in which case we would excuse the panel, take out 45 minutes as a break pe- riod, and then plan to have Ms. Hanson here. I'll just tell every body that, so you can think about it. Senator Domenici, are you going to seek additional time now? I want to call on Senator Boxer. Senator DOMENICI. No, no. I would ask for 30 seconds after she's finished. The CHAIRMAN. Actually, in rotating back and forth, if you wanted to go now, you're entitled to do so. Senator DOMENICI. All I wanted to say to my good friend from Massachusetts, I find-I'm not stating right here and now that I have objection to what you want us to consider or that I agree with it, but I would just like to make an observation. It would seem to me that, since we are very limited in scope and every Senator may have a different thing that they would like to be considered in the next phase ' I'm willing to breach the scope, and I'm not saving you did, nay friend. A way to breach the scope is to lay before the Committee what we would like to be considered later on, with the justification be' that we're just trying to make a point that we want to make sure investigation covers this. We could pi out things that we are worried about in the third phase, when our Special Prosecutor is finished, and we could say every day, "Well, we want to just talk about this because we want to make sure it's in the next investigation." I would hope the Chairman would urge that all of us resist that. That's not what we're supposed to be doing here. To that extent, I pledge myself not to do that and I hope everyone else does.
Fashion Parade - Luciani's Women 's Suits
From Florence to Rome, Italian designers are unveiling the creations which they hope will keep them in the forefront of the Fashion Parade. Luciani takes his inspiration from Sagittarius and creates some "heavenly-sent" styles for spring and summer. The models are walking down a run-way at a fashion show held in a hotel. MS - Model is wearing a random pattern on white accented by gloves up to the elbow. and the length of the dress is just below the knee. MS - The model is wearing a strapless dress in a light woolen blend with a short jacket to match.. MS - This is a white sleeveless dress accented by a hat with a brim. MCUS - The double arch buttons found on Luciani's suits has a Sagittarius theme, and he scores a bulls eye all through the show. MS - Model on the run-way is wearing a suit with a little flair to the skirt, 3/4-inch sleeves on the jacket and a straw hat with a brim.
Yesterday's Big Story - US Gunboat Panay
A story of high drama gripped the world's attention in 1937.....It was the story of the U.S. Gunboat "Panay". As was to happen four years later at Pearl Harbor, a quiet Sunday afternoon erupted into an inferno of bombs and fire as Japanese planes attack the U.S. Ship carrying American refugees from war-ravaged Nanking. Clearly labeled with American flags, the "Panay" was dive-bombed and machine-gunned and two men were killed and a dozen wounded. The Japanese government apologized, but why it happened is a question unanswered to this day. The US Panay and sailors on its deck. MCUS - The Panay loading American refugees from another small boat. MS - Ships Capitan and other ship's officers looking up at the sky watching a plane fly overhead. MS to MCUS - The ship was attacked by the Japanese without warning. Bombs just missing the boat at this point. CUS - Gunners firing at the planes. CUS - Two gunners firing at a plane that they hit. I think their watching it come down from the sky. CUS - Sailors abandoning ship because it was hit and sinking fast. MCUS - Sailors taking the wounded from the life boat on to the shore. MCUS - The Panay sinking. MCUS - Survivors in a life boat, and in the back ground a dead body floating face down in the water. MCUS - A sailor who was wounded in the head and is bleeding. There's blood on the side of his head and face. MCUS - Sailors and other passengers of the ship carrying the wounded on to the shore. MCUS - Survivors disembarking from the life boat on to the shore. MCUS - You see all the machine gun holes on the side of the ship's cabin. MLS - The US Gunboat "Panay" is starting to sink,
Inside Cuba: The Life That Refugees Flee
As Cuba enters the fifth year of Fidel Castro's rule, that island nation is a land of uncertainty and quiet desperation. These pictures of life in Cuba were made by an American cameraman on assignment from Universal Newsreel and show only what authorities wanted to show. However, they do reflect the military flavor of day-to-day life and there's not much to show that Communism has bred prosperity for the masses in Cuba. POV from a deck of a ship of Cuba and her sky line. MS - Military trucks on the water-front and crated Russian farm equipment. MCU - A civilian walks by the camera and nods to the cameraman and keeps on walking. CUS - Book cover, "Todos Somos Uno' and another book " Firmes Junto A Fidel" another, the back of the book is shown with Fidel's picture on it. Another cover of a book "La Revolucion Cubana Los Ninos, Segunda Oeclarrcion Bela Habana. MS/POV - From the passenger side of the seat in a car, you see very little traffic on the street and only a few pedestrians walking on the streets. MS - School children going into a school building all wearing uniforms. MS - A teacher in a class room and a Cuban student writing Russian on a black board. MS - Three young teenage girls dressed in military apparel.. MCUS - A Cuban solider carrying a riffle on his back guarding a department store. CUS - A young woman standing with her rifle guarding a department store. MS - A Cuban man guarding a department store, walking and looking in the windows.
Common Market: DeGaulle Vetoes Britain's Entry
Common Market: France Vetoes Britain's Entry. The meeting of the Common Market commission in Brussels is a wake for Britain's hopes of joining the nations of the continent in a unified economic front. Five of the member nations welcomed British participation, but DeGaulle (aiming at French domination) kept Britain out. Outside the building of the Common Market . MS - Inside the building there are a lot of diplomats and long tables with seats on each side, MCUS - A card for France, Deutschland, Nederland, Italia, Luxembourg and Belgique - Belgie. MCUS - A big man walks through the door, (unidentified) walks straight through the crowd of men into a room with waiting photographers. MS - The dignataries are standing around talking off the cuff to each other. MS - Dignataries stitting at the long tables and other dignataries, aids or the press are standing at the back of the room.
Gales Lash Northern California
Gales Lash Northern California. The record-breaking drought here is broken with a bang as gale-force winds whip a downpour over the area. Thirteen people are injured as the longest dry spell in 64 years comes to an end. The Golden Gate Bridge on a very foggy day and gale force winds and waves lashing against the pier. MS - One lonely photographer taking snap shots of the crashing waves. MS - A very flooded street with a stranded car sitting amidst of water. MCUS - Two people in a canoe paddling down a flooded street. MCUS - A fireman standing waist high in the water pointing to a house. MCUS - A flooded car parked in its driveway. Camera panning - Flood water rising , house, no parking sign, MS - A flooded street with cars and people, the street looks like a flowing river. MS - Some of the flood receded and cars and trucks are driving through and people are walking in ankle high water with children.
The Greeks Have A Word For It
The Greeks Have A Word For It- "Love"! The King and Queen of Denmark are welcomed to Greece by that country's King and Queen as they arrive with Princess Anne-Marie 16 years old who just became engaged to the Greek Crown Prince, Constantine. And it is a romance that has caught popular fancy. The Princess is the youngest of three sisters and the first to become betroth. Her fiancee the Crown Prince and is err to the Greek thrown, and is considered one of the catches of the season. The receive an ovation as they drive through the streets of Athens. Plane arrives and is rolling down the tarmac. MS - King Paul and Queen Frederica , she wearing a mink coat and hat. MS - King Fredrick and Queen Ingrid from Demark, disembarking from the plane. MS - As the Royal couple make their way from the plane at the bottom of the stairs await King Paul and Queen Frederica. MS - Prince Constantine and Princess Anne-Marie driving in a convertible. CUS - Crown Prince Constantine and Princess Ann-Marie standing on the steps posing for the camera. Nice looking couple.
Rally Battles Snow Storms
Rally Battles Snow Storms. Snow adds to the hazards of the Monte Carlo Rally, often termed the world's toughest road race. It's over icy roads down to the warm coast where switchbacks call for skillful driving. This year's victors are a team from Sweden. A road sign (CU) indicating slippery when wet. MS - Area covered with snow and a race car sliding around the curve. MS - One after another the cars come sliding around the curves of the road. MS - People standing at road side. MS - The cars are out of the snowy area of the race and are now driving on dry roads and going much faster. MS - The Swedish team wins
Britain's Crisis: Macmillan In Italy For Economic Talks
Macmillian In Italy For Economic Talks. A grim Prime Minister MacMillan meets with Italian Premier Fanfani after France's rejection of Britain's entry into the Common Market. He receives assurances from Fanfani before an audience with Pope John XXIII who has also expressed concern about European unity. Prime Minister Macmillian with Italy's Prime Minister Fanfani. MS - Outside Vatican City in Rome. MS - Macmillian walking with priest inside Vatican City. MCUS - Prime Minister Macmillian and the Pope.
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:40:37) Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, my time hadn't actually expired. This is within the scope that has been deferred by the Special Prosecutor, so I'm simply trying to guarantee what is already within the scope--I'm not trying to broaden it--this is actually within the scope already deferred. The reason I brine it up so strongly today is because Mr. Roelle has informed us and-confirmed that the prior White House had a direct contact with respect to criminal referrals at a time that is very troubling. I'm simply reacting to the evidence that has come forward in putting two and two together and sug- gesting that we ought to pursue it. It is within the scope. I would then defer to the Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Let me . just say that, the scope of future hearings as opposed to this set of hearings, I think, is yet to be defined. We'll take any and all suggestions, and we'll give those to the next Chairman, Senator Sarbanes. and that will happen, one suspects, on his watch. In any event, Senator Boxer Senator BENNETT. May I express the hope that it's Senator D'Amato. The CHAIRMAN. That's also a possibility. Senator BOXER. Your hope is so noted. I do want to talk a tiny bit more about the briefing of Senator DAmato's staff, which I never said was inappropriate. I want to make it clear, I don't know if it was inappropriate because I wasn't there. But, it took place and, Mr. Ryan, you testified it was rather unprecedented that it 92 would be, as you put it, called specifically for you yourself to come to such a meeting Was there anything else discussed there? In other words, Senator Kerry talked about ail the savings and loan's that lost billions of dollars for the taxpayers. Was there any discussion at that meeting by Senator DAmatos staff about any other savings and loan I let's' say in New York or Texas or California, or anywhere where there was a bigger loss to taxpayers, a discussion about the statute of limitations, tolling agreements, et cetera? Mr. RYAN. No, there was not. As I recall the conversation, it dealt principally with how the RTC was going to respond to information requests submitted by Senator DAmato relative to Madison. Senator BOXER. It was just about Madison. Mr. RYAN. That's correct. Senator BOXER. Nothing else was raised in that meeting. Mr. RYAN. That's all. Senator BOXER. How long did that meeting last, approximately? Mr. RYAN. Twenty minutes, half an hour, something like that. Senator BOXER. I would like to ask, Mr. Roelle, did you yourself ever see the criminal referrals or did someone just call you and summarize them? Mr. ROELLE. No, I've never seen them. Senator BOXER. Did Ms. Hanson ever see the criminal referrals, as far as you know? Mr. ROELLE. No. ma'am. Senator BOXER. Has Mr. Altman ever seen the criminal referrals, as far as you know? Mr. ROELLE. No, ma'am. Senator BOXER. My last question is to Ms. Kulka. As we all stated, you have a reputation as being a tough lawyer, and I think people on both sides have expressed, frankly, their admiration for that. Who hired you? Ms. KULKA. Mr. Altman. Senator BOXER. Did he ever discuss Madison with you before you were hired? Ms. KuLKA. No. Senator BOXER. Did he ever indicate be wanted you to go easy on the Madison case at any time? Ms. KULKA. No. Senator BOXER, Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAiRmAN. Thank you. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator DAmato. Senator DAMATO. Let me go to the actual notes of the legislative aide who was there on behalf of Treasury and with Mr. Ryan, was Peter Knight. He said he wanted to express his concern that it not be used to show it was a briefing on Madison. I didn't prepare this. This was prepared by them to say exactly what it was. Further, Peter Knight wants to be sure that this meeting is not characterized as a briefing on Madison. I could go on-I want you-again, Peter Knight's memo clearly, clearly states that. We were interested, and the record will show' on the floor of the Senate on numerous times, here at the Commit 93 tee in open public hearings, in open letters, that I did not hide. The communications were open. We wanted to know whether and when the statute of limitations was going to toll. There was a question. Some thought it might be as late as August. I think you'll ascertain that was a question Mr. Natter, our Counsel, raised. He was told, eventually in a telephone conversation because counsel wasn't sure at that time or at least Mr. Ryan wasn't sure at that meeting, when it could toll.
Pint-Size Bronco Busters
"At Cheyenne Wells, Colorado, a troop of under teen-age young one display cowboy ability with wild ponies & cantankerous bulls. Action full rides & spills in a wild melee of boys, broncos & bulls." Little Britches Rodeo. LS cowboys riding horses, ponies around pit. TLS audience in stands. TLS white boys riding spotted longhorn bull steer coming out of gate, getting thrown off, none riding for longer than a few seconds. MS boy riding colt, the boy wanting off more than the colt. TLS boy riding bucking bronco (broncho), the animal tossing the boy to the ground after a few moments. TLS seated audience applauding. Panning MS young man riding Brahmin bull, getting thrown after a decent ride. TLS young man riding Brahmin bull, rider falling after a few moments. MS young man riding galloping, bouncing Brahmin bull, boy eventually falling off by fence.
Hula Hoop Contest
"A New York City hula-hoop champ is chosen in a Central Park final. The kids show hip-wiggling skill at whirling the hoops around their necks, waists, and even ankles with the energy of a downtown whirling dervish."TLS/MSs children hula-hooping in open amphitheater (multi-racial, multi-ethnic kids). CU African-American girl sleeping in mother's arms. Nice MS several kids-- white blond girl with pigtails in FG-- hula-hooping, American flag in BG. MS kids hulahooping, black girls in FG. Great MS white boy hula hooping, American flag in BG; boy almost drops it, the hul hoop around his knees, but he somehow manages to swing it up to his waist again. MS white girl with hula hoop around her; she spins it to her waist. Cute MS little fat Hispanic boy, roughly four years old, spinning hula hoop.
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:45:33) For the record, several days thereafter, we had a conversation and in that conversation they said they thought the statute of limitations would expire on February 28, 1994, or in early March. I was determined to see to it and I'm proud of the fact that we offered, and were able to get, legislation passed which extended the statute of limitations. It took us beyond the question of whether or not tolling agreements would be obtained, whether or not people's rights would be protected, and whether or not the matter was going to be handled in the traditional manner. I'm very proud of that, and I think we have to be very clear as to exactly what we got. We got nothing other than what we were determined to get and what was right and pro per information as it related to when this matter would go beyond the ability of the RTC to bring a suit, if one was necessary. I think that more than adequately states it, I'd like to put into the record all of the supporting documents from Peter Knight to Ben Nye, from Jean Hanson as it relates to conversations with Peter Knight, which very accurately state the facts as I have artfully-and also my communication to Roger Altman on January 10, 1994, in which we express our concern. I'll just summarize our concern that the running of the statute of limitations may prevent the final resolution of all allegations relating to Madison Guaranty. That letter was signed by eight Senators and Congressmen, and I'd like to put that in the record as well. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, we'll put all of these documents into the record at this point. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Could I make the observation, Ms. Kulka, that if your reputation of being a very tough lawyer wasn't generally known before this bearing today, it's certainly well-known now as a consequence of this bearing. Ms. KuLKA. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shelby. Senator SHELBY. I want to say, to all four of them, I believe today has shown they're very professional. If they would have had the leeway to run the RTC by themselves, we wouldn't be here today. The CHAiRmAN. I think we've concluded with this panel. I want to thank you all for your appearance today, and for the testimony you've given to us. The Committee will recess now and resume at 4:30 p.m. with Ms. Hanson. The Committee stands in recess. (15:48:20) [Recess.] (15:48:22) Commentary of NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE from tv studio (15:50:53) WETA logo, PBS funding credits
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(16:30:00) PBS funding credits (Tape #10060 begins) (16:30:13) Whitewater coverage title screen (16:30:24) NINA TOTENBERG and KEN BODE in tv studio introduce and discuss day's hearing, they also interview Senator ROBERT BENNETT (16:33:25) Hearing begins: AFTERNOON SESSION The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. Let me invite everyone to find a seat here in the Committee room and we'll start in a moment. Earlier in the day, when we began, I introduced all the witnesses we would be hearing today. I wanted just to briefly repeat the introduction of the witness that we have before us now, and that is Ms. Jean Hanson who is the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. By way of background, she was previously employed at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver, and Jacobson, a noted law firm, from 1976 until March 1993. She served as a consultant to the Department of Treasury from March 1993 until June 1993 when she was confirmed into her present position, directly, by the Senate. Let me now ask you to stand and raise your right hand, if you would please. Do you swear that the testimony you, are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing had the truth, so help you God? STATEMENT OF JEAN E. HANSON, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON DC Ms. HANSON, I do. The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Ms. Hanson, let me inquire, do you have a statement you, want to make at the outset? Ms. HANSON. I do, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Let me also suggest that you pull the microphone a little closer to you. so that you can be heard by everyone in the room. And when you are ready, you can go ahead with your statement. Ms. HANSON. Is this fine? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Just speak loudly so you can be beard. Ms. HANSON. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Senator KERRY. We can't hear. Senator GRAMM. We need the mike right up close. The CHAIRMAN. Let's try to tune it up a little bit, too, if you can. Ms. HANSON. Is that better? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, that's better. Just try to speak into it as much as you can, at the same time trying to get situated comfortably. I know you have a statement to read.
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(16:35:19) Ms. HANSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I "am Jean Hanson, General Counsel of the Treasury Department. I have been privileged to hold that position since June 1993. 1 am testifying to ay pursuant to Senate Resolution 229 exploring communications between Treasury officials, including me, and White House personnel relating to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. 96 Out of respect for this Committee's work and for the investigation that preceded this Committee's work, I have refrained from speaking with reporters about this matter. There have been many recent leaks of my testimony and documents, which include numerous misstatements and mischaracterizations, I welcome this opportunity to testify publicly and to speak for myself. I hope you Will make your judgments based on my testimony today. I have tried my best to recollect everything that occurred about this matter. I have also reflected on the reasons for these conversations. I know that these conversations violated no law, no rule, and no ethical standard. I also know that they were appropriate and that they furthered legitimate governmental interests. Before I turn to Madison, I want to tell you a little about myself. For nearly two decades before coming to Washington, I practiced law in New York and worked on complex corporate transactions., I came to New York from Minnesota, where I was born, and where I was reared to do things in a straightforward, Midwestern style: Honestly and by dint of hard work. I am not a "Beltway Insider," I am not a political person. Prior to coming to Washington, I bad no contact whatsoever with the President or the First Lady. I did not campaign for them, or for any candidate, and I do not owe my Treasury appointment to political activism. I was recruited for my position. My husband is a Republican-until recently. I did not know Secretary Bentsen before I accepted his offer to become Treasury General Counsel. Indeed, I didn't know anyone at Treasury or in the White House. I accepted Secretary Bentsens offer for one reason. I wanted to contribute to the important work of the Government, and give something back to my country. I still do. At the outset, I would like to address my role in RTC matters. As Treasury General Counsel, I am charged with carrying out duties and assignments given to me by Secretary Bentsen and Deputy Secretary Altman. I fulfilled assignments relating to the RTC given to me by Mr. Altman and, at times, Secretary Bentsen, but at no time did I ever hold any position at the RTC nor have I ever acted as RTC General Counsel. To say the least, the RTC is an unusual entity and people often misdescribe it and its functions. For example, it is a corporation, not an agency, except for limited purposes. It is not a regulatory body because it doesn't regulate anything. It is not independent. The RTC CEO serves solely at the President's pleasure, unlike independent agencies such as the SEC and the CFTC. It has a finite life span, scheduled to end next year. Except for its CEO, it has no employees and must carry out its functions by utilizing FDIC and Executive Branch personnel, including Treasury employees. As Interim RTC CEO, Mr. Altman had statutory authority to seek the assistance of Treasury personnel on matters related to RTC functions. And, as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, he had the authority to grant the assistance of such personnel. Mr. Altman asked me to assist him with policy-related and other matters involving the RTC, and I did so. Mr. Altman undertook to serve two jobs for a limited period. He was entitled to all the assistance he 97 could muster. It was entirely appropriate for me to assist him in an legitimate way he requested.
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(16:45:50) Although I have no recollection of having briefed Secretary Bentsen as the memorandum states, I am sure that had memorandum accurately reflects that I did. The memorandum does not specify the subject of the briefing. I may have told Secretary Bentsen about the meeting or, as is more likely, I may simply have alerted him to the fact that there would be press leaks relating to the Madison criminal referrals, and the nature of the anticipated leaks. On October 14, 1993, 1 attended a meeting at the White House arranged either by Mr. DeVore or Mr. Steiner, two senior Treasury officials, to discuss the handling of press inquiries Mr. DeVore had received with regard to the Madison criminal referrals. Mr. DeVore, at the time, was Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. The issue I recall Mr. DeVore saying the press had raised then was whether the referrals were being held up at the RTC and not being forwarded to the Justice Department. Implicit in the question was a suggestion of misconduct on the part of the Treasuru or the White House officials. have no doubt that the meeting was appropriate. First, the press inquiries Treasury had received confirmed that information about the criminal referrals had been leaked now to at least two reporters, a significant breach of Government regulations that gave the Administration officials no choice but to be prepared to respond. Indeed, I was struck, when the articles in question appeared in the press at the end of October and early November, by just how much more about the referrals the reporters know-knew than I ever did. Second, the inquiry was based on false information that cast the Administration in an inaccurate and decidedly prejudicial light, which the Government had an obligation to correct. The CHAiRmAN, Let me gust stop you for one moment and I excuse myself for doing so, but some people are still having a hard time hearing you. If you could pull the mike a little closer stillcan you just-can you or is it stuck there? Senator GRAMM. Put your book on top of it. Ms. HANSON. I'm sorry? Senator GRAMM. Put your notebook up on top of it. That way, you can pull it closer to you. 99 Ms. HANSON. Thank you. again--better? The CHAMMAN. It's--I think so. Ms. HANSON. Again, there was no intent, and certainly I know of no effort, to interfere in any way with the referrals which, I believe I learned subsequently, had already been forwarded by the RTC to the Justice Department. By mid-January, congressional attention became focused on upcoming deadlines under the statute of limitations for the filing of any civil claims the RTC might bring in the Madison matter. At the time, civil claims involving Madison bad to be filed on or before February civil 28, 1994, unless the RTC either decided not to pursue any claims or obtained tolling agreements from parties who had might be the subject of a civil suit. various Members of Congress were pressing the RTC to obtain tolling agreements if the RTC could not complete its Madison investigation by February 28, 1994. In the face of the fast-approaching deadline, Mr. Altman considered whether he would recuse himself from substantive decisionmaking regarding Madison-related civil claims. On February 1, 1994, Mr. Altman and I briefed Secretary Bentsen on the operation of the statute of limitations in the Madison matter. In that meeting, Mr. Altman stated that be bad decided to recuse himself from any substantive decisionmaking regarding Madison civil claims, a course that I bad recommended to Mr. Altman and one in which Secretary Bentsen concurred during our meeting. Mr. Altman stated that he wanted to meet with appropriate White House officials to apprise them of his decision to recuse himself. I said that I would attend the meeting with him.
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(16:40:15) I now turn to Madison and what I learned, how, from whom, and to whom I imparted that knowledge. Given time constraints, I will not cover every meeting or conversation that I discussed in my deposition before the Committee. Rather, I address the principal contacts regarding Madison in which I was involved. To put this into context, it is important to understand that there were two distinct phases to the RTC's consideration of Madison. First, was the preparation of multiple criminal referrals relating to Madison that I ultimately learned were forwarded to the Justice Department. Second, was the consideration by the RTC of potential civil claims that might be brought against various persons who had had some involvement with Madison From the last few days of September 1993 through the second week of October 1993, the limited discussions in which I participated related to concerns about leaks to the press of the Madison criminal referrals. In December 1993, the passage of the RTC Completion Act revived the previously lapsed statute of limitations for many potential civil cases, including Madison. From mid-January 1994 until the end of February, the limited discussions in which I participated related to the statute of limitations and other procedural matters surrounding possible civil claims relating to Madison. On September 27 1993, RTC Senior Vice President, William Roelle, called to tell me that nine criminal referrals related to Madison were on their way from the RTC in Kansas City to Washington, after which they would be forwarded to the Justice Department. I clearly understood from Mr. Roelle that the referrals and the information about them that Mr. Roelle imparted to me would be leaked to the press when the referrals arrived in Washington, which, in fact, did occur close in time to Mr. Roelle's call to me. Mr. Roelle summarized the referrals and said that President and Mrs. Clinton were mentioned as possible witnesses. I reported this conversation to Mr. Altman who tasked me to advise Bernard Nussbaum, then Counsel to the President of the imminent press leaks. On September 29, 1993, 1 did so after a meeting that both Mr. Nussbaum and I had attended to discuss the Treasurys report on the handling of the Waco situation. A few observations are in order. First, before Mr. Roelle's unsolicited call, I had no prior knowledge of Madison other than a news story that had appeared during the campaign. Second, my task, to alert White House Counsel Nussbaum to imminent press leaks so that he could deal with them intelligently, was entirely appropriate and necessary. The existence and the substance of the criminal referrals was leaked and the Administration did have to deal with the ensuing inquiries. Third, no preferential treatment or benefit was intended for anyone and, as far as I know, no one received preferential treatment. The President and First Lady were not the subject of any proposed governmental action. They were merely possible witnesses. It has been reported that Mr. Altman does not recall tasking me to advise Mr. Nussbaum of what the RTC professional staff believed would be imminent press leaks. In my view, the difference between Mr. Altman's and my recollections on this point is not sig- 98 nificant. If I had thought it was inappropriate to brief Mr. Nuss baum, I would not have done it. I take full responsibility for the decision to do so. What I think is significant is that Mr. Altman and I agree that it was entirely appropriate to brief Mr. NussbauTr, about the expected leaks. When the search was done to locate documents responsive to the Independent Counsel's subpoena, a September 30, 1993, memoran- dum I prepared was found in my secretary's chron files as well as in my own RTC files. That memorandum, addressed to Mr. Altman had attached. to it a document confirming that the referrals had been leaked to the press and re reported that I had spoken with had Nussbaum and Mr. Sloan, bad briefed Secretary Bentsen, and in- quired of Mr. Altman whether there was anything else he thought we should be doing regarding these press leaks. I do not have an independent recollection of writing this memorandum, but I am confident that I prepared it. It bears my initials and is the kind of memorandum I write to report back on matters that I have been tasked to do.
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(16:50:22) To assist Mr. Altman, I prepared talking points to guide him through both the statute of limitations and the recusal issues. Prior to leaving Treasury for the White House and out of an abundance of caution, I also consulted with my Deputy General Counsel, who is the Designated Agency Ethics Officer, to see whether he had any pragmatic or other concerns regarding the topics Mr. Altman in-tended to discuss. He had none. The meeting took place in Mr. McCarty's office, although Mr. McCarty left before the meeting began. In addition to Mr. Altman and me, the meeting was attended by Mr. Nussbaum, Mr. Ickes, Mr. Eggleston, and Ms. Williams. Mr. Altman read the talking points, including the last point, that he had decided to recuse him-self from any substantive decisionmaking in the Madison civil mat-ter. There was no discussion regarding the substance of the RTC's investigation of the civil claims, and I was not capable of having such I a discussion , since I had no knowledge of the substance of the RTC s investigation. After Mr. Altman's statement on recusal, a discussion ensued. Mr. Nussbaum asked if the matter would be decided by Ellen Kulka, the RTC General Counsel, and Jack Ryan, the Interim Deputy CEO of the RTC, to whom Mr. Altman bad referred in his discussion Mr. Altman responded, "Yes." Mr. Nussbaum also asked why Mr. Altman was recusing himself, since no one appeared to believe that there was any legal or ethical requirement that he do 100 Mr. Altman indicated that I had recommended that he recuse himself. I added that Secretary Bentsen concurred in that judgment Mr. Nussbaum said that he knew Ellen Kulka, or knew of,", from her prior tenure at OTS. Mr. Nussbaum said that he saying that Ms. Kulka was not a good lawyer, but that tough. Mr. Altman responded by saying that he bad enormous confidence in Ms. Kulka, and that be would follow any recomendation he received from her anyway, so his involvement was vant. Mr. Nussbaum expressed his view that even if Mr. Altman intended to follow the staffs recommendation, Mr. Altman's pres- ence as the RTC CEO would ensure that the RTC staff would pur- sue any claims with thoroughness and professionalism. Mr. Ickes expressed the view that, if Mr. Altman were going recuse himself, it would be better if he did it sooner rather later. Ms. Williams asked whether, if the investigation could In completed by the end of February, that meant the tolling agreement would have to be signed. Mr. Altman indicated that thought so. She also asked it counsel for the private parties be contacted. Mr. Altman indicated he thought so, but he was not sure. The meeting ended with Mr. Altman stating that he would think about the recusal issue overnight, and Mr. Nussbaum told him that was all they could ask. The next morning, Mr. Altman told me that he bad decided 'not to recuse himself for the time being. The White House meeting on February 2, 1994, was proper. First, the briefing on the statute of limitations operation did not impart any nonpublic information. It merely apprised the White House of how the law operated, a briefing also given to congressional personnel. Second, the briefing served a legitimate governmental purpose. By the February 2, 1994, meeting, Senator D'Amato and others were counting down the days, wondering whether the RTC would make a decision in connection with possible Madison civil claims before the statute of limitations expired, and what the decision would be. Mr. Altman was aware of the recusal issue, and acted appropriately in considering whether to exercise his discretion to recuse himself a decision that ethics officers advised was entirely up to him and not mandated by ethics statutes or regulations. When he reached a conclusion, it was entirely appropriate for him to tell Mr. Nussbaum and other White House officials.
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(17:00:20) At page 55 of the printed record of the Committee's hearings, the following question was asked by Senator Gramm: 102 Have you, or any member of your staff, had any communication with the Presi- dent, the First Lady, or any of their or any member of their White House Savings & Loan? representatives, including their legal counsel staff, concerning Whitewater or the Madison Although Mr. Altman responded affirmatively to this question and described his discussion at the February 2, 1994, White House meeting about the statute of limitations, his answer did not include a description of the recusal discussion. I believed it was appropriate to wait until we could discuss his answer and the reasons that he had not mentioned the subject of recusal, to decide how best to supplement the record. As I have indicated, that opportunity never arrived. As I left the hearing on February 24, 1994, 1 spoke with Steven Harris, the Committee Staff Director and Chief Counsel Mr. Harris told me that there were going to be follow-up questions for Mr Altman from the Committee. The next day, Mr. Harris emphasized that we should expect many follow-up questions. On the following Tuesday, I was given a copy of a Reuter's transcript of a colloquy between Senators Riegle and DAmato in which Senator DAmato set forth over a dozen questions that he wanted answered about the White House meetings described in Mr. Altman' s testimony. Senator Riegle responded to Senator DAmato that, ' "The Committee record is still open," and that Senator D'Amato's questions should be submitted to Mr. Altman so that they could be answered and included in the record. Based on this and on what Mr. Harris had told me the previous week, I fully expected that we would receive written follow questions which would be answered in conjunction with a thorough review of the transcript of the testimony. There was no doubt in my mind that all of these conversations and meetings would be disclosed and described fully to the Committee, and that every question would be answered. However, as I stated, with the service of the Grand Jury subpoenas by the Independent Counsel the normal process of reviewing and, if necessary, correcting the record was overtaken by the many investigations that followed. As my description of the events of last fall and this past winter makes clear each of the conversations between White House and Treasury officials at which I was present served a legitimate governmental purpose, and was not intended to, and, in fact, did not, further any private interests or bestow benefits on any individual. The same cannot be said, however, for the RTC employee, or employees, who leaked information about the criminal referrals to news reporters, breaching the Office of Government Ethic's ethical standards and RTC regulations. No action was ever taken against them. I think it is important for all of us to maintain our focus. Much has been made in the press about purported inconsistencies between some of my recollections and those of Secretary Bentsen and Deputy Secretary Altman. I have the highest respect for both Sectary Bentsen and Deputy Secretary Altman. It is my honor and privilege to serve with them and report to them. The fact that we have differences in recollections should come as no surprise. Wit- nesses to events often have differing recollections and, frankly, the differences here are not important. They are not important because no one, not me, not anyone at Treasury,and no one at the White 103 House, attempted to interfere in the substance or processes of any criminal referrals, or the substance or processes of any potential civil claims, involving Madison. The criminal referrals were made, the civil claims continue to be explored, and Mr. Altman recused himself from any involvement in the Madison matter almost half a ear ago, never having made, or having been asked to make, a substantive decision.