Advanced Search
S. America beaches and crowds
S. America military - Chile
S. America scenic - Chile
S. America - Chile
Paraguay ("Bottle Dance')
Montevideo - Uruguay
Peru
Peru mountains
Peru night lights
Llams with other animals
Peru - driving hero
Peru -christ statue
Peru mountains
Peru (towns, mountains, people)
Lima, Peru
Overview of Plaza San Martin with cars and buses driving around the square, adult Peruvian men and women pedestrians walking around the plaza; statue of Jose de San Martin visible in the middle of the plaza. Two lanes of traffic traveling down street; one lane turns onto another street, mixed adult pedestrians waiting to cross street.
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE 95519 Peru, Inca Ruins
Peru, misc.
Peru: The Vanishing Animal"
Peru: The Vanishing Animal"
August 2, 1994 - Part 3
(00:05:11) Senator SARBANES. Now, that's a different answer than the path I seem to be taking, was led down when I was being told there was no specific conversation. Mr. STEINER. Well, Senator Senator SARBANES. See, it's interesting because Mr. Altman did the same thing when he was before our Committee, and we have to parse your words very carefully here. Now, you do, as I understand it, recall conversations in which Mr. Altman expressed the view on this question; is that correct? Mr. STEINER. It's conceivable-I can't recall any conversations directly that Senator SARBANES Strike the word "directly." 375 Mr. STEINER. I believe Mr. Altman has said that it is not surprising that our recollections differ and they do differ. Senator SARBANES. Why isn't it surprising? Mr. STEINER. We're speaking about events that took place many months ago, Senator. Senator SARBANES. Do you think Ms. Hanson, of her own volition, would go to Nussbaum in the White House to give him this information? Mr. STEINER. I think she might, yes. Senator SARBANES. You do. She said yesterday that it was not conceivable to her that she would do this. Mr. STEINER. I did not listen to her testimony, Senator. Senator SARBANES. That's what she said. Do you disagree with that? Mr. STEINER. She certainly has a better sense of her own responsibilities and course of action than I do. Senator SARBANES. Would it be your evaluation that she might go do it on her own? What's your evaluation of that? You know her. You know Altman. You know how it works. You know the interaction between them. Mr. STEINER. As I said, Senator, I think it's possible that she would do it under her own direction, Senator SARBANES. Mr. Nye, what do you think about that? Mr. NYE. My understanding of those events, and at the time I was not aware of them, was that she actually informed Bernie Nussbaum at the end of a meeting that they were having already on the subject of a Waco, Texas report involving the AFT--that's my understanding recently gained. To the extent that she would have, at the end of the meeting, pulled him aside and informed him of that does not seem incredulous to me. Senator SARBANES. Do you think she did it because she had been directed to do so by Mr. Altman? Mr. NYE. That I have no knowledge of Senator SARBANES. You've never heard any discussions by either Altman or Hanson on this point? Mr. NYE. At what time? Senator SARBANES, Any time. Mr. NYE. In the very Senator SARBANES. I am asking questions in the most general fashion to elicit the most responsive and broadest answers. I want to establish that as a premise. And therefore, I don't want an answer that says, well, now, if specifically-and then you exclude it out. So I'm asking you at any time Mr. NYE. Right. And what I'd like to, respond Senator SARBANES. -directly or indirectly. Mr. NYE. What I'd like to respond to you and that's why I was asking your time frame, was that I have had one conversation with Roger Altman in response to a press article recently on the question of the difference of recollection. It was the Sue Schmidt article, I forget the date, but it was a Sunday article recently, the past cople weeks. In it-and his response to this was simply that it was an honest difference of recollection, and given the event happened approximately a year ago or so, I took that to be the case. 376 Senator DODD. Senator Sarbanes, though, asked-you know this person. You know Jean Hanson, don't you? Mr. NYE. Yes, I do. Senator DODD. Tell us about her demeanor. This is almost a demeanor question, a stylistic question. A lawyer with a major law firm, an independent person, obviously a successful individual. Did she strike you as the kind of person who on her own direction her" own volition would decide to go down and see the Chief Legal Counsel for the Presidency at the White House? Mr. NYE. That's what I was just trying to explain. I believeagain, this is all recently. I wasn't aware of this at the time, but I believe that she attended a meeting on another subject all together, and then pulled him aside at the end Senator DODD. You're not being responsive to the question. I'm' not trying to hold you to some rigid standard here. I'm asking you an opinion about somebody. We don't know her you do. Mr. NYE, My response to the Senator was simply that I didn't think it was inconceivable. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. Could I just put a couple questions to Mr. Foreman? Mr. Foreman, bow long have you been the Deputy General Counsel for the Treasury? Mr. FOREMAN. January 1991, Senator. Senator SARBANES. And how long have you been the Chief Legal Officer there? Mr. FOREMAN. I'm sorry. I've been the Chief Ethics Officer for the same period of time.
August 2, 1994 - Part 3
(00:10:22) Senator SARBANES. I'm sorry. Mr, FOREMAN. It comes with the position of Deputy General Counsel, comes the Designated Agency Ethics Official position as well. Senator SARBANES, Did you-I'm Dot quite clear on your background. Did you come to this position working up through the civil service ranks, or was there a political dimension to your obtaining this position? Mr. FOREMAN. Sir, I think both. I was a Career Senior Executive Service Lawyer in the Department of State. I resigned from that position in the summer of 1988 for a few months, worked as a volunteer in the Bush campaign, went back to a career position in the State Department and then was selected for the Deputy General Counsel person as a political noncareer appointee. Senator SARBANES. I see. So you left your job in 1988 to go into George Bush's political campaign; is that correct? Mr. FOREMAN. No money, as a volunteer, that's correct, sir. Senator SARBANES. Then after the campaign, what happened? Mr. FOREMAN. After the campaign, I got a call from the State Department Legal Advisor's Office where I had worked, and they asked me to return to a career attorney position, and I did so. Senator SARBANES. And then what happened? Mr. FOREMAN. Then I was selected for a Career Senior Executive service position as an assistant legal advisor a year or so later, and then in December, I guess, of 1990, 1 got a call from Ms. HansonJeanne Archibald at the Treasury Department asking me to come 377 interview for 'the position of Deputy General Counsel which I did not even know or was aware was open, Senator SARBANES. That was a political appointment? Mr. FOREMAN. The position was a noncareer position, Senator. Senator SARBANES. Noncareer. Mr. FOREMAN. That's correct. So I went from a career senior executive position to a noncareer senior executive position. Senator SARBANES. Then I take it our name had been floating around in the personnel office at the White House for that Mr. FOREMAN. It may have been, Senator, but my name was specifically suggested to Ms. Archibald by another former General Counsel of the Treasury Department; that she might be interested in interviewing me for the position. Senator SARBANES. Then when the new Administration came in? Mr. FOREMAN. When the new Administration came in, Mr. Altman met with me, asked me to stay on as Acting General Counsel until a new General Counsel bad been confirmed. Senator SARBANES. And then what happened? Mr. FOREMAN, Then Ms. Hanson asked me to stay on. Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will recess now, and we'll resume at approximately 2:15 p.m. (00:13:25) [Recess.] (00:13:27) Hearings hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG close out morning coverage (00:15:16) WETA logo, PBS funding credits (end of tape #10067)
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(10:49:19) PBS funding credits (10:49:28) Whitewater Coverage title screen (10:49:39) In tv studio hearing hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG introduce afternoon's testimony, they also speak to STEVE ROBERTS of U.S. News and World Report (10:56:40) Hearing resumes: The CHAIRMAN. .any other and Roger Altman would have no involvement. Now I must tell you that what I've just read to you, which is verbatim from your diary, cross-connects and validates the same' information that we have from other sources. So I find this to be quite accurate. My first question to you would be, nearly as you know, sitting here today, and testifying under oath as you are, as you did when you provided this to the deposition attorneys, is this an accurate account? Was this your best sense at the time of what constituted an accurate account of what was taking place? Mr. STEINER. Senator, I believe if you would have asked me at the time to describe to you as precisely as I could the events that took place, I would not describe them exactly as I have here because, as I said before, my purpose in writing this was not to provide the most precise narrative I could, My purpose was to reflect back on events that had occurred. The CHAIRMAN. But you see, in some sense, that makes this an even more valuable account, I realize we're caught up in all of these infinitesimal shadings and nuances of words and phrases and suppositions, but I think when you were writing this, you're the Chief of Staff at the Treasury Department. You re not some lowlevel functionary. You're one of the top people over there because you had the confidence, background, and so forth that have entitled the judgment that you've received to have that job. You're a key person. The fact that you're 28 years old might cause someone to think that maybe you were a lower level person. You're one of the highest ranking people in one of the major Cabinet agencies in Government. You're a key player. As a result, you carry a lot of responsibility. So when you gave this account to yourself, you had no reason to shade the truth. You had no reason to exaggerate. You bad no reason to go into this endless sort of shaving and parsing. I assume when you were talking to yourself, that you were being straightforward, honest, and candid. Moreover, and I'm going to say it to you again, everything else I've been able to gather from other witnesses supports the accuracy of this account. So you don't need to back away from it for any reasons of accuracy unless you want to tell us today there's something in here that's inaccurate and I'm not talking about fly specking. I'm 379 talking, as Senator Sarbanes was earlier, the general accuracy and thrust of what you've said. Now, you've said a lot of important things here, and you've said there was a major struggle over this recusal decision. Clearly, there was. There's abosolutely no question that Roger Altman made a decision to recuse himself, went to the White House, indicated that's what he was going to do and he got a lot of negative feedback, very negative feedback and he then decided that he better not do that, at least not right then. Isn't that the truth? Mr. STEINER. To the best of my recollection, Senator, Mr. Altman was planning to recuse himself or leaning toward recusing himself. When he went to the White House, as be's related to me because I was not at that meeting, Mr. Nussbaum, as I've said, made some powerful arguments about why that was not the wise course of action. That is the events as I
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(15:40:48)(tape #10069 begins) But I think what's important here is not to make these sweeping statements about an Administration because of this one problem. Obviously, there are political reasons why there are those people who don't want us to look at the fact that we are working on a crime bill, and health reform, and all the other things that we're doing, things that have been neglected for 12 years, and I understand that, but I would say this: We know, in this particular circumstance, that there were some very good people who were really concerned that a press leak could derail the Administration from its very important agenda. And because too many people, had too many conversations, and were involved in too many meetings and in my view, using press leaks as an excuse to hold even more meet- ings. They undermined their own purpose, which was not to get off course. So that's a problem and I think everybody can learn from that. All of us in our lives. There was no criminality, no obstruction of justice, and no interference with the investigation. I think that's very important to the American people. We can learn from this, but lets not blow this up into proportions that it is not. Senator Gramm longs for the day when a Republican will take back the White House. I can understand that -from his perspective. But I would urge him, if be wants to put all this into perspective read the Haldeman diaries which I'm in the middle of reading. You want to really take a very good look at the White House, this was a diary that was kept for history, and it talked about how poli- tics and enemies lists and other things ran a White House and ran amuck, so there's something for us to learn in all of these things that occur. But they have to be put into perspective. 404 So in closing, let me say this to whoever cares, don't let press leaks or stories about press leaks run a White House or a Senate office, or a Government office. We should do our jobs for the American people, that's what we're supposed to do, and don't worry about the press. It won't be good no matter what you do. Just come to grips with that from day one. Let private counsel handle matters that happened before the President became President. Keep it separate. That's what I'm learning from all this. And, I hope the Administration is learning that and I want to thank these witnesses. You have been, I think, candid with us. This has been I look at you, I see the youth, and the loveliness difficult especially for you, Mr. Steiner, because as exuberance of youth, the exaggeration of youth, along with some of the problems of And I think you, of all people here on this panel, should talk to the guys with the gray beards and the gray hairs such as Senator Dodd. He's got gray hair. You can talk to him, too. [Laughter.] Senator BOXER. But, just because you're young doesn't mean your opinion isn't worth something, as Senator Kerry has stated. I think you showed us in this diary some of the feelings that are missing in public life today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator D'Amato, anybody else on your side? Senator D'AMATO. No, Mr. Chairman, but I do think, if I might respond to my friend and colleague, formerly a Brooklynite, now a Senator from California Senator BOXER. That's why I can keep up with you. [Laughter.] Senator D'AMATO. And you go beyond. [Laughter.] Senator BOXER. That's a compliment, coming from you.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(15:45:20) Senator D'AMATO. I want to know that I think, without even having checked with my colleagues, we could enter into a Unanimous Consent Agreement that we agree with lour observation about the press. It doesn't matter what you do, its not going to be good. The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else seeking recognition or can we con. elude this panel and go to the next witness? Seeing no requests for time, let me thank these witnesses for their appearance and well conclude your testimony at this time and excuse you. We'll take a brief 3-minute recess here to allow Mr. Altman to come into the room and then we'll resume the Committee session. (15:46:00) [Recess.] (15:46:05) Commentary of hearings hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG