Advanced Search
Mining Boom In Canada
Canada is experiencing a mining boom that the experts are comparing with the uranium rush that followed World War Two. There is a swiftly rising demand for molybdenum, an alloy used in steel, and mines in the wilds of British Columbia are working around the clock to meet the needs of world steel mills. Aerial Shot - Mining area in British Columbia, as you see the land is pretty much stripped. MS - A truck driving up a road carrying dirt. MS - The land heaves and spits soil into the air as explosives are set off underground. MS - A crane loading a huge dump truck with the remains of the earth left over from the explosion. CU - A dump truck unloading its dirt. CU - Young worker wearing a hard hat. MS - The ore being ground up and mixed with water. MS - A mine worker loading up steel drums with raw ore on a conveyor belt. MS - A flat bed semi taking away the packed ore in their 600 pound barrels.
Swimmer Just Misses Mark
Isaac Papke, a 39 year old grandfather attempts a 29 3/4 mile swim from the Farallon Island to a Beach near San Francisco's Golden Gate. He almost makes it, but at the end of 15 hours he has to give up just 2 1/2 miles from his goal. A close up shot of Isaac putting on a bathing cap and goggles, and he is wearing a huge smile on his face. POV - Looking up at the Golden Gate Bridge from a boat in motion. LS - Isaac Papke swimming in a distance in choppy water. MS - Isaac Papke and his pacer swimming in the choppy bay. MS - Coaches and other people standing at a railing of the pilot boat. MS - Isaac Papke drinking coffee in the water, his pacer beside him and in the back ground a man in a row boat, and behind the row boat is the pilot boat. MS - People at the railing of the pilot boat. MS - Papke in the water swimming strong and the sun is starting to set. CUS - Photographer taking pictures with a telescopic lens. Evening and Papke is still swimming, part of the row boat is in the shot. LS - Sun is setting, you see the pilot boat, a two row boats. CUS - Papke standing on the deck of the pilot boat wearing a lei around his neck, still smiling. CUS - Papke his wife to his right and to his left an older woman who kisses him on the side of his cheek.
The Elections: Lindsay Ends NY Dems 20 Year Rule
John V. Lindsay, Republican Liberal candidate for Mayor of New York, ends twenty years of Democratic rule as he runs ahead of two other candidates. In the three-cornered race, Lindsay runs ahead of Abraham "Abe" Beame. Democrat, candidate. His election propels Lindsay onto the national political scene. The new Mayor of New York, John V. Lindsay, Republican. CUS - Mayor Lindsay taking on the phone. High Angle Shot - Throngs of political supporters listening to a speech given by Abraham "Abe" Beame who was the Democratic nominee for Mayor, but was defeated by the Republican candidate, John V. Lindsay. MS - Closing into a close up shot of a poster or billboard of William F. Buckley Jr. the third candidate who was running as a conservative. CUS The new Mayor, John V. Lindsay, Republican shaking hands with the people on the street's of New York. CUS - Camera panning of people queued up to cast their votes. MS - John V. Lindsay at his headquarters and his supporters in attendance.
Chaplin Is Back - Noted Actor To Direct Sophia Loren
At the Savoy Hotel in London, the movies most famous clown announces that he is returning to motion pictures--to direct Sophia Loren in a comedy. Charlie Chaplin has been away from films for 14 years, but he was persuaded to return to direct "The Countess" which will be released by Universal Pictures when completed. Savoy Hotel in London. Doorman in front of hotel door. High Angle Shot - In a hotel banquet room Sophia Loren and Charlie Chaplin are surrounded by 250 members of the press. High Angle Shot - Photographers snapping pictures of the two stars. Medium CUS - Sophia Loren and the back of Charlie Chaplin's head. Tight CUS - Sophia Loren. MS - Sophia Loren sitting on a chair, the camera pans up from her knees to her head. CUS - Photographers snapping more pictures. CUS - Charlie Chaplin. CUS - Sophia Loren.
Mississippi 23 - LSU 0
Louisiana State, leading ground-gainer in the Southeast Conference, is held to 12 yards rushing as Mississippi dominates the entire game. When the dust settles, Mississippi is on top by a whopping 23 to 0. Louisiana State marching band on the football field spelling out LSU. High Angle Shot - Mississippi's marching band spelling out DIXIE. High Angle Shot - Fans in the stands waving little Confederate flags. High Angle Shot - Two teams facing off each other. High Angle Shot - Mississippi quarterback throws the football, it is caught at the one yard line. High Angle Shot - The football is passed and brought home for a touchdown. High Angle Shot - Second half and the kick-off is fumbled, picks it up runs, and fumbles again, Mississippi snatches it in mid air and brings the ball to the six yard line. High Angle Shot - Mississippi is handed off the football and brings it home for a second touchdown. MS - Score board - Ole Miss 16 - LSU 0. High Angle Shot - LSU passes the football and it is intercepted by Mississippi and returns the ball all the way for a touchdown. Mississippi 23 - LSU 0.
Nebraska 16 - Missouri 14
The Missouri Tigers throw a scare into undefeated Nebraska before the Cornhuskers get going. Missouri runs up a 14 to nothing lead before Nebraska gets going, but at the half-time they still trail, 14 - 13. With five minutes left in the game Nebraska pulls it out of the fire with a 3 point field goal. High Angle looking down at the University of Missouri's marching band on the football field. Throngs in attendance for the game. High Angle Shot - Missouri quarterback has the ball, he passes and the ball and it is caught. High Angle Shot - Lane carries the ball for a Missouri touchdown. High Angle Shot - Camera panning the crowd. High Angle Shot - Nebraska quarterback passes the ball and it is intercepted by Missouri. High Angle Shot - Lane passes the ball for nineteen yards just inches from another touchdown. High Angle Shot - Missouri bulls over the other players and scores another touchdown. LS - Missouri football fans are going crazy with happiness in the stands. High Angle Shot - Nebraska finely rolls in the second quarter the receiver catches the football and lands just outside the goal line. High Angle Shot - The ball is carried over into the end zone and Nebraska finely gets on the scoreboard. High Angle Shot - Nebraska is handed off the football and he runs the ball down the side line, and it is taken down just outside the goal line. High Angle Shot - Nebraska takes the ball and carries it over the end zone for his second touchdown. MS - At the half Scoreboard - Missouri 14 - Nebraska 18. Nebraska Defeats Missouri.
The "Human Bomb" Live Grenade Taken From Viet's Back
For ten days, Nguyen Van Chin, a South Vietnamese civilian, was walking booby trap while doctors pondered on how to remove a live grenade from his back. Finally, a bomb-proof operating room was constructed with sandbags. Using six-inch scalpels and probes, a team of three doctors spent 13 anxious minutes removing the live grenade and turning it over to a bomb disposal unit. Asks Van Chin: "When can I go home?" MS - Nguyen shirtless sitting on a bed as two doctors examine his back. MS - Backs of a medical crew and some photographers and sand bags piled up in a hospital room. MS - The backs of the operating room staff and Nguyen getting on the operating table. Looking at the back of Nguyen you see a bump under his skin that is the size of a soft ball. CUS A doctor helping Nguyen on his stomach and preparing him for the operation. MS Behind stacked sandbags the team of three doctors operate with makeshift operating tool holders. Their long bamboo sticks with the operating tools fastened to the ends of the sticks. MS Slowly the removal of the grenade from his back with the makeshift operating tool. CUS Nguyen getting off the operating table. CUS Dr. Humphries being interviewed by the press. MS Nguyen Van Chin sitting crossed legged on his hospital bed.
Princess Meg Tours: Royal Visitor Sees West Coast Sights
Princess Margaret of Britain is Seeing America at last and she begins in San Francisco - first stop on her three-week official visit. She rides a cable car and a Hovercraft and visits a nuclear laboratory before continuing her nation-wide tour. Princess Margaret and her entourage over looking San Francisco Bay. Princess Margaret and her husband, The Earl of Snowden (Anthony Armstrong-Jones). Princess Margaret, Earl of Snowden and the rest of the entourage have fun on a cable car. Secret Service, British Secret Service hanging on to and running along side of the cable car. Aerial shot San Francisco Bay, hovercraft moves across water. People on the roof of the hovercraft standing at the railing, waving. Princess Margaret and the Earl of Snowden disembarking from the hovercraft. MS People standing on the observation deck of a building waving to the Princess and her husband, as they walk towards the building. At Berkley, California "Lawrence Radiation Laboratory". Princess Margaret being shown a model of the partial accelerator.
Arkansas 31 - Rice 0
Footage is damaged. The Arkansas Razorbacks make it 20 straight victories as they grid Rice into the dust - 31 to 0. Jon Brittenum and Bobby Burnett star for Arkansas as the Razorback defensive squad stops all Rice attacks. Packed football stadium at Rice University in Houston, Texas. High Angle Shot - Two football teams facing off. Arkansas, John Brittenum passes the football to Bobby Burnett and he runs the ball 15 yards. High Angle Shot - John Brittenum carries the ball for the last 5 yards for the first touchdown. High Angle Shot - Rice's quarterback passes the ball and goes right into the arms of a Razorback. He returns it 49 yards up to Rice's 9 yard line. High Angle Shot - Burnett is handed off the football and carries it over the goal line, scoring a Razorback touchdown. Scoreboard, U. Arkansas 17 - Rice O. Brittenum throws the football and it is caught. High Angle Shot - Burnett is handed off the football and he goes over the goal line and scores another touchdown for the Razorbacks. Razorback is handed off the football and carries it over the goal line clinching its 20th consecutive win, Arkansas 31 and Rice 0.
UCLA 28 - WASHINGTON 24
Footage is damaged. The California team take on the Washington Huskies and they have to come from behind - 24 to 14 at the Half to squeak through 28 to 24. Gary Began runs for sixty yards and then passes for sixty more to score two late touchdowns. Everything is Coming Up Rose Bowl for UCLA. Crowded stadium with football fans at UCLA, Los Angeles. High Angle Shot - Washington and UCLA facing off on the football field. High Angle Shot - Washington throws a touchdown pass, a 50 yard pass, and a touchdown is scored. High Angle Shot - Washington passes for 56 yards and it is the Huskies second score going up on the scoreboard. High Angle Shot - Washington going for their third touchdown, passes the ball and it is caught - 21 points for Washington. High Angle Shot - California gets up a little steam and Gary Began passes the ball and it is caught. High Angle Shot - Gary Began takes the ball over the goal line and puts 14 points on for UCLA. High Angle Shot - Began for UCLA carries the ball 60 yards for UCLA having quite a time for himself. And its Washington 24 - UCLA 21. High Angle Shot - Began passes the ball and this play including the run eats up 60 yards, and UCLA scores a touchdown UCLA 28 - Washington 24.
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(22:25:01) Ms. HANSON. First, I disagree that this has been-there has been an investigation by the Independent Counsel. There's been an investigate tion by the inspectors General and there has been no finding that this information, the information that was conveyed to the 183 White House on the criminal referrals on the press leaks, was used inappropriately by anybody, no one. In addition, I am sorry that if you-that you think I didn't handle this transcript, and these issues, appropriately. However, I had no expectation, no expectation the letter that was written on March 2, 1994, which was designed for a specific purpose, and the letter that was written on March 3, 1994, that was also designed for a specific purpose, was going to complete, or was intended to complete, the record. My attorneys gave me specific instructions when the Grand Jury subpoenas were served that since I was under, and the conduct was under, investigation-under a criminal investigation, that conversations between the participants involved could be misconstrued by the Independent Counsel. That was a view that was shared by other people who had received subpoenas. I am sorry that the transcript was not supplemented as I expected it to be, but I was not able to participate, and I did the best job I could do. The CHAIRMAN. We have to leave this exchange at that point. Senator Bond. Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to say to the Senator from California that the very perceptive questions she asked were ones that have been bothering me. I have been disturbed, I've listened all day, and I've read the statements, Ms. Hanson, about what happened to that simple little question I asked. You worked on and prepared, with Mr. Altman, an answer on March 2, 1994. That was, as I gathered from the statement, "I appreciate the opportunity to amend the record accordingly." You did not, in that March 2, 1994, letter, feel that you had to correct the major inadequacies in the answer to that question I asked Mr. Altman? Ms. HUNGARIAN. I'm sorry, sir, I don't understand your question. Senator BOND. You participated in writing the letter of March 2, 1994, that Mr. Altman sent to the Chairman. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. I read the letter of March 2, 1994, yes. Senator BOND. You knew at the time, that when Mr. Altman answered the question I asked, it was not a full and truthful answer, did you not? Ms. HANSON. I believed that Mr. Altman understood the question and responded to it, to the best of his recollection, with respect to RTC contacts. Senator BOND. Are you trying to play lawyer with us, saying because you were in the Treasury, even though you were detailed to the RTC, that he was somehow using that technicality to say that, because you were operating at the direction of the CEO of the RTC but were employed by the Treasury, it didn't apply to you? Ms. HANSON. I understood that I acted in my capacity as General Counsel to the Treasury. Again as I have testified, I didn't recall at that point in time-as I sat here during the hearing, I had only a vague recollection of my conversation, and I did not know what Mr. Altman recalled. The letter of March 2, 1994, was designed, solely, to put the Committee on notice about the two additional meetings in the fall, that were going to appear in the newspaper article the following day. It was not intended to be a complete description of those contacts, or to supplement the record to make it 184 complete and thorough. So, no, sir,
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(22:24:35)(Tape #10064) I just do not approve of the way this matter was handled in terms of giving us the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I also do not approve of using, as an excuse press leaks to discuss very confidential information which I think only fed into the whole cycle of more press leaks and more stories. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Bond. Ms. HANSON. Could I respond to that, please? The CHAIRMAN. If you do it briefly, you know-go ahead. (22:25:01) Ms. HANSON. First, I disagree that this has been-there has been an investigation by the Independent Counsel. There's been an investigate tion by the inspectors General and there has been no finding that this information, the information that was conveyed to the 183 White House on the criminal referrals on the press leaks, was used inappropriately by anybody, no one. In addition, I am sorry that if you-that you think I didn't handle this transcript, and these issues, appropriately. However, I had no expectation, no expectation the letter that was written on March 2, 1994, which was designed for a specific purpose, and the letter that was written on March 3, 1994, that was also designed for a specific purpose, was going to complete, or was intended to complete, the record. My attorneys gave me specific instructions when the Grand Jury subpoenas were served that since I was under, and the conduct was under, investigation-under a criminal investigation, that conversations between the participants involved could be misconstrued by the Independent Counsel. That was a view that was shared by other people who had received subpoenas. I am sorry that the transcript was not supplemented as I expected it to be, but I was not able to participate, and I did the best job I could do. The CHAIRMAN. We have to leave this exchange at that point. Senator Bond. Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to say to the Senator from California that the very perceptive questions she asked were ones that have been bothering me. I have been disturbed, I've listened all day, and I've read the statements, Ms. Hanson, about what happened to that simple little question I asked. You worked on and prepared, with Mr. Altman, an answer on March 2, 1994. That was, as I gathered from the statement, "I appreciate the opportunity to amend the record accordingly." You did not, in that March 2, 1994, letter, feel that you had to correct the major inadequacies in the answer to that question I asked Mr. Altman? Ms. HUNGARIAN. I'm sorry, sir, I don't understand your question. Senator BOND. You participated in writing the letter of March 2, 1994, that Mr. Altman sent to the Chairman. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. I read the letter of March 2, 1994, yes. Senator BOND. You knew at the time, that when Mr. Altman answered the question I asked, it was not a full and truthful answer, did you not? Ms. HANSON. I believed that Mr. Altman understood the question and responded to it, to the best of his recollection, with respect to RTC contacts. Senator BOND. Are you trying to play lawyer with us, saying because you were in the Treasury, even though you were detailed to the RTC, that he was somehow using that technicality to say that, because you were operating at the direction of the CEO of the RTC but were employed by the Treasury, it didn't apply to you? Ms. HANSON. I understood that I acted in my capacity as General Counsel to the Treasury. Again as I have testified, I didn't recall at that point in time-as I sat here during the hearing, I had only a vague recollection of my conversation, and I did not know what Mr. Altman recalled. The letter of March 2, 1994, was designed, solely, to put the Committee on notice about the two additional meetings in the fall, that were going to appear in the newspaper article the following day. It was not intended to be a complete description of those contacts, or to supplement the record to make it 184
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(22:30:17)(Tape #10063 ends) it was not intended to be a full description of those contacts. Senator BOND. Ms. Hanson I it does say, "I would appreciate it if you would amend the record accordingly." When Mr. Altman called me that evening, on March 2, 1994, 1 was struck then, as I am struck in your answer now, that the thing that seems to drive YOU to correct the inaccuracies in the testimony to the Congress, was the fact that the truth was going to come out in the newspaper. I would hope there would be a somewhat greater responsibility that you would feel as an attorney, when you have information that makes you aware your client is clearly, actively, and demonstrably misleading Congress, to advise your client to correct the record, or at least indicate that there was a question which would have to be clarified later. I find that to be extremely troubling. Ms. HANSON. Sir, I think you have mischaracterized what I have said and what I did. I have said that that letter was not intended to be a full response to your questions. That letter was sent, as a courtesy, so that the Committee would be aware of those two additional contacts before the article appeared in the paper. What was left still to be done, sir, was to review the whole transcript, and to respond to the questions that we understood were coming. We understood that there were going to be many of them. I fully expected that every single contact, between the RTC, the Treasury, and the White House, on these matters, was going to be fully and completely laid out. However, as I've stated, I received a Grand Jury subpoena and I did not have an opportunity, even to read the transcript, until after the subpoena was served. What I expected to happen didn't happen, when the March 2, 1994, letter was done. During the course of that week I had no expectation that anything, other than what I thought was going to happen, which was a thorough, care ful, orderly review of the record, and correction and completion in answering of questions, was going to occur. I really-and I am I really resent your statement about my professionalism. Senator BoND. Ms. Hanson, if there's anyone who has something to resent-1 feel that you did not deal properly with us. Let me ask you, since you did ask specifically for, and looked at, the tape in which those questions were asked. There were two questions you said you focused on. You didn't need to wait for the transcript. You saw that on the tape. You were there in real life, you saw it on tape, and you still did not feel obliged to tell your client that he should correct his testimony. You didn't need the whole transcript, because the question was raised about the accuracy of the response to the question I addressed to Mr. Altman. You went back and looked at the tape, I believe we gathered from your earlier discussion, and you saw, then and there, did you not, that he misled us, that he did not Ms. HANSON. Sir, as I stated, we looked at the tape on March 1, 1994. Overnight, I created-I worked on those questions and answers and tried to get an understanding in my own mind. We put together a letter, which was not, in my mind, the letter that would have been put together if we had bad more time, and we sent that letter in. By no-I did not expect that to be a full and complete re 185 sponse to your question, sir. That's not what I understood that letter to be.
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(22:41:35) Ms. HANSON. I can't ascertain it for you specifically. Throughout this period of time I was working with attorneys, Counsel for the oversight board, staff-career staff in the Treasury who helped write FIRREA, and Counsel for the RTC. I felt-I always felt, and I continued to feel, that I had ample authority for everything that I was doing. The attorneys in the Treasury, as I say, also oversight board and RTC attorneys, knew what I was doing and none of them raised an issue about authority. Those attorneys, to my experience-in my experience, have no problem raising an issue if they think that there is a legal authority problem. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. I won t get into whether it was raised or not, because I think, in some of the testimony, it was raised that you did not have the authority to-when you specifically requested to see the criminal referrals, you were refused that information. Ms. HANSON. I never, ever, requested to see the criminal referrals. I've never seen them. I never requested to see them. 187 Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. I guess my question to you is, assuming that you-you assumed that you had this authority. I want to pick up where Senator Roth left off. Senator Roth raised the question, and I would raise the question of you as well, did it never occur to you, or to anyone in these involvements, that the lines between your role at Treasury and your role at the RTC, that those lines might give rise to an ethical dilemma for you? Ms. HANSON. No, and it didn't happen. It didn't happen. There was no ethical dilemma in doing the work that I did. I was asked by my superior to do it, and I did it. He had plenty of statutory authority to ask it and, also, to grant it. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Then let me ask you one final question, Ms. Hanson, if you had all this to do over again, what parts, if any, would you do differently now? Ms. HANsON. If I could, just to correct-to make sure that my testimony is perfectly clear on the criminal referrals, I did have a conversation with Mr. Roelle, at one point, about the criminal referrals, because it had been suggested that I might read them. I told Mr. Roelle that it had been suggested that I read them, and he said, "Jean, you don't want to do that," and I said, "You're right, I don't want to do that," just so the record is completely clear. I'm sorry, your question, again, is if I had it to do over, what would I do differently? I would make sure that I got a transcript. I don't think I would do anything else different] further questions. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you. No further The CHAIMAN. Senator Bond.
Elk
PART TWO Bull Elk antlers growing
Bison
PART TWO Bison calf sleeping Bison calf nursing 3 day old calf walking, running, umbilical cord
Coyote
(Tape 1) 02:03:09 Coyote makes 2 jumps and misses, then trots off in light snow 02:05:53 Coyote hunts in circle, gets nothing 02:06:26 Coyote lopes 02:06:53 Trotting, stops to check vole, eats it, in light snow 02:08:17 Coyote catches vole, high jumps in snow 02:09:07 Coyote hunting close 02:09:15 Young coyote hunting grasshoppers, tongue hanging out 02:10:37 Coyote in high grass 02:12:05 Coyote hunting vole and missing 02:22:01 Coyote trotting and walking near river bank 02:23:45 Coyote attempting to cross river, turns around and goes back to bank, shaking fur 02:24:48 Trotting on river bank 02:27:53 Hunting, catching and eating vole 02:29:52 Coyote and cattle
Wolf
(Tape 1) 02:32:29 Young wolves playing in water, chase each other around in grass 02:35:20 Wolf in Denali National Park, Alaska. on road with bus, see cameraman walking behind wolf at beginning of shot 02:36:28 Wolf trotting on tundra, looking for ground squirrels
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(22:35:17) Senator BOND. It was inaccurate, because it did not state who made the contacts. There was never any follow-up effort. You are using the March 4, 1994, subpoena as a reason to walk away from, and leave unfulfilled, your obligation to correct the record. Is that a fair assessment? Is that your reason for not seeing that the record was corrected? Ms. HANSON. Sir, no one asked-if there were supplemental questions answered, and if the responses to the record were reviewed, no one asked me for my input, nobody contacted me. I was under specific instruction, from my attorneys, not to talk with anyone about these matters. I understood that was the understanding of other people who had received the subpoenas as well. Consequently, I did not, because I was a recipient of a subpoena for a Grand Jury investigation. Senator BOND. So you are now using the Grand Jury investigation to justify, number one, your failure to correct the statement made by your client, which you knew to be incorrect at the time, because back on December 21, 1993, you had prepared this draft that was torn out, had you not, referring to the September 29, 1993, meeting with Ms. HANSON. I'm sorry, sir, I don't know what you are talking about. Senator BOND. You don't have this draft that was found, this Madison Guaranty chronology, you didn't prepare that on December 21, 1993? Ms. HANSON. That was-I did prepare that draft chronology, yes, sir. Senator BOND. In which you talked about the meeting with B. Nussbaum, J. Hanson, and Cliff Sloan in B. Nussbaum's office following the Waco prebrief. That was in that memo. Ms. HANSON. Yes. Senator BOND. You remembered it then, forgot it in February, and then, you remembered it later in February? Ms. HANSON. No, sir, I remembered the meeting-I remembered that I had a conversation with Mr. Nussbaum. As I said, my original recollection was that it was by phone. I hadn't thought about it, seriously, for a very long time. The whole focus of the preparation for the hearing was on the civil investigation and the statute of limitations issues. We bad not thought about the fall meetings. There was no intention to mislead anyone. It hadn't been thought about. That letter, the March 2, 1994, letter, was not intended, in my view, to be a full-it certainly wasn't a full response to your questions, because it didn't give any detail. That is not how I viewed the letter, sir. Senator BOND. The March 2, 3, 11, and 21, 1994, letters were still inadequate. Did you see any of those letters? Ms. HANSON. I saw the March 3, 1994, letter. I did not see the other two until the Grand Jury, until at some point Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is out. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Moseley-Braun is next, and when I come across Mr. Bennett has one item that be wants to raise. I think that will conclude Senator Bennetes situation. 186 Senator Moseley-Braun. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanson, everybody's very tired and, quite frankly, I was more than taken aback to your answers to Senator Boxer's questions. I would suggest to you that part of the problem, and part of what Senator Boxer was getting at, is the notion that with regard to the things you were hired to do by Treasury as its Counsel,, you failed to follow through with some of those things, specifically, the transcript correction. We have a situation in which testimony given on February 24, 1994, was corrected on March 2, 1994, was corrected 1, again, on March 3, 1994, and after March 4, 1994, you weren't involved, but it was corrected two more times thereafter That is something that fell directly under your responsibility. Senator Boxer was concerned about that. The thing I find as troubling, with regard to the failure to follow through on the things you were hired to do, is with regard to the things you weren't, really, hired to do, the RTC matters. You seemed to have been running around being involved with those matters as well. I refer you, specifically, to the September 29, 1993, October 14, 1993, and February 2, 1994, meetings with Mr. Nussbaum around civil statutes and the RTC criminal referral actions. You said, earlier, that you had the authority to undertake this activity regarding the RTC, and we've gone back and forth with regard to where that authority comes from. I'm not going to dispute whether you had-whether a fair reading of any of the RTC statutes would have given you that authority or not. That is not my question at all. I'm prepared to concede that, under a reading of the statutes having to do with the RTC, you could have been loaned out from Treasury to do RTC matters. My question to you, though, is when did you make the analysis regarding your authority to work on RTC matters? Was that something that was done in front of the process? That is to say, did you attend all these meetings and do all these things having to do with the RTC after you found out you actually bad statutory authority to do so, or did you find out about these statutes and the permission, if you will, that they might have granted, after these activities took place? When, if you can tell us, specifically, did you ascertain that you had the authority to be involved with RTC matters?
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(22:45:17) Senator BOND. Just to finish up very quickly. Ms. Hanson, you have referred to the OGE report that makes it clear that divulging nonpublic information can be prohibited, even sharing it Government official to Government official, unless its advancing a legitimate Government interest. You claim that preparing for the press inquiry is a legitimate Government interest, but even the OGE has said, and as we have gone over today, confirming a press leak can have disastrous consequences. For example, today, even though Mr. Roelle refused to comment and give official sanction to what was in the criminal referral, YOU, in fact, gave us the first confirmation that the Clintons were named as witnesses Ms. HANSON. That's not true, sir. Senator BOND. That is the first Ive heard a Government official state that. I'll be happy to have you Ms. HANSON. That is not true, sir. Senator BOND. I would be happy to have you tell us what other Government officials have confirmed it, but I would conclude my point by saying, the one thing that is prohibited is to advance a purely private interest. In my view, there is no more purely private interest than to give someone, whether Government official or not, a 30-day heads-up on a criminal referral which offers the opportunity to destroy documents, talk to other parties, and to get the stories straight. Ms. HANSON. With respect to the private interest, sir, that was something that the Office of Government Ethics looked into. They concluded that there was no violation of the ethics rules because it was not for a personal benefit. There was-the OGE concluded 188 that there was a legitimate governmental purpose. I'm sorry, Sir, could you please repeat your first question, Senator BOND. You said 0 was not the first public confirmation by a governmental official that the Clintons were named as witnesses in the criminal referral, Please provide me the information because I must have missed it. Ms. HANsON. The information is included in Mr. Sloan's notes that were released yesterday by the Inspector General and have also been released by Congress. Senator BOND. Mr. Sloan is an official in the White House, not an official in the investigating agency. Is that correct? Ms. HANsON. I'm not an official in the investigating agency, sir. Senator BOND. You certainly acted like it. You were designated, and you worked, under the direction of the CEO. The CHAIRMAN. Are you finished? Senator BOND. I'm finished, thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bennett, you had an item. Senator BENNETT. Thank you. I normally wouldn't stick around for this, but I plan to use it in conversation with Mr. Altman. It comes out of your deposition, so I think it's appropriate that I give you a chance to comment on it before I start quoting it. It is prompted by a statement you made earlier, I've forgotten to whom-it's all beginning to blur together, as I'm sure it is for you-that there was no pressure, of any kind, brought on Mr. Altman as a result of his meeting at the White House. I have trouble with the statement that there was no pressure on Mr. Altman. Let me read to you portions of your deposition that, in my view, demonstrate there was pressure and, then, let you talk about it. That's the point I want to get done tonight. You say, "I recall Mr. Nussbaum"--this is at the meeting at the White House in Mr. McLarty's office. Mr. McLarty is not there, but there's a meeting in his office. "I recall Mr. Nussbaum asking Mr. Altman why be had to do this"!--that is, recuse himself---"and recall Mr. Altman stating that I had"--I, Jean Hanson, General Counsel of the Treasury--"had recommended that he recuse himself, and I stated that Secretary Bentsen had agreed with the recommendation. I recall Mr. Altman saying that it didn't matter, that he held Ellen Kulka in very high regard and had confidence in her, and that any recommendation she brought to him, on this matter, he would certainly follow, so it didn't make any difference if he were involved or not."
Woodchuck
(TAPE 2) 07:59:52 Woodchuck feeding on clover 08:02:20 Woodchuck peering from den, close up 08:10:45 Woodchuck feeding on clover, close 08:11:25 Woodchuck and a deer 08:11:38 Woodchuck feeding on clover, close 08:12:20 6 times woodchuck stands erect 08:14:37 Woodchuck and a deer 08:14:51 Woodchuck feeding, close 08:15:42 Woodchuck peering from it's burrow
Lem Bailey Misc. UN Roll 1001
06.05.51 Pan WS Golden Gate Bridge in fog, pan to distant SF skyline (hard to read)
Richest Race - "Adios Don" In Comeback
Richest Race - "Adios Don" In Comeback The richest race in harness racing history sees a thrilling comeback for "Adios Don" who was injured early in the season. He puts on a stretch run that noses him home first and he wins $72,000 out of a whooping $145,000 purse. Crowded stadium seating. Spectators walking down stairs, arriving. Harness racing. Number 8 comes from behind and passes the pack to win. horse racing, prize
Twenty-Five Years Ago
A quarter of a century ago King Edward VIII gave up his throne for the woman he loved --- Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson. King Edward VIII inspecting troops. DO NOT USE Still photo of Wallis Simpson. Two policemen standing outside no. 10 door. Downing street? He was succeeded by his brother who had a daughter who became Queen Elizabeth. Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret and Queen Elizabeth getting out of car. Princess Elizabeth grabs hold of Princess Margaret s hand. Crowd lined street. King, Queen, and Princesses shake officials hand. The San Francisco-Oakland Bridge was opened. A wonder of its day --- it's still the longest single span bridge today. Great shot of bridge. Mass traffic jam of cars. Opening of bridge, with fire iron cutter, cutting through chain link. Attendant giving change, we see change belt as car passes through type of toll booth. POV or tracking shot from bridge. Nice footage. The predecessor to today's wire photo system, the transmission of pictures over regular telephone lines was demonstrated. Man talking on old telephone, puts ear piece on record turn-table type device. Picture is held in the middle and is turned on. It transmits a duplicate picture to the machine attached on the other end of the line. Exact copy. Early fax machine.