Advanced Search
Travelling With Pack Animals
Travelling With Pack Animals
Oxen
Oxen
CU Horses Legs Run Across Tough Terrain
On Preview Cassette 210916 CU Horses Legs Run Across Tough Terrain. Very brief shot.
Rice - Hens and Eggs - Beef Cattle - Dairy...
Rice - Hens and Eggs - Beef Cattle - Dairy Cattle - Goats - Potatoes
Grazing On and In Mountains, Ranch, Plains, Fields
Grazing On and In Mountains, Ranch, Plains, Fields
August 3, 1994 - Part 7
(18:05:16) Senator ROTH. Well, I have to say that I am somewhat surprised at your answer. Presumably, this was issued on February 22, 1993 to govern the kind of contacts that could be made by White House staff. And yet you're telling me that as one of the experts on ethics, you're not that familiar with this particular memorandum. Ms. NOLAN. Senator, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to suggest that. What I meant to say was that I haven't looked at what the particular matter was, the Madison Guaranty matter, to state whether it would fall within the category of defined matters subject to the Senator ROTH. Let me ask you this, if I may. Would not a criminal referral constitute an adjudicative matter in your judgment? Ms. NOLAN. Yes, it would. Senator ROTH. And since we are talking about the Madison Guaranty criminal referrals, they would constitute, if I follow your answer, an adjudicative matter pending before an agency, either RTC or Justice Department; is that correct? Ms. NOLAN. I'm sorry, Senator. Could you repeat that? Senator ROTH. Well, you answered me that criminal referrals were an adjudicative matter, so what I am asking is aren't the Madison Guaranty criminal referrals an adjudicative matter? Ms. NOLAN. I believe-I can only say, Senator, that I believe it would be, but I am not familiar enough with the matter to give you a specific answer. Senator ROTH. But you would answer in the affirmative, as far as a criminal referral being an adjudicative matter? Ms. NOLAN. Yes, sir. Senator ROTH. Now, section A-1 of the memorandum includes two lists of Government agencies. The first group of independent agencies, and I quote, "should not be contracted by White House 129 staff' unless, prior clearance is received from the White House Counsel's Office. The second group of agencies should not be contacted without prior clearance by the White House Counsel on matters regarding the exercise of their "regulatory or adjudicative functions." Is that correct? Ms. NOLAN. Should not be contacted without the permission of the Counsel's Office? Senator ROTH. Yes. Ms. NOLAN. Correct. Senator ROTH. Let me ask you this, Ms. Nolan. While the RTC is not included on either list, the memorandum goes on to state, and I am quoting "the list is merely illustrative. Many bureaus and divisions of agencies have authority to issue binding regulations or to decide specific claims and the same rules on prior clearance apply for those entities as well." And moreover, subsection A-2 states that the ban on agency contacts extends to "components of departments and agencies with authority to investigate charges of misconduct." Now, Ms. Nolan, would speciflic investigative matters pending before the RTC, such as Madison Guaranty, be included in the ban on direct contact by White House personnel under the Nussbaum memorandum? Ms. NOLAN. Senator, I'm not sure. If I were asked that question, I would have to look at exactly what the Resolution Trust Corporation's charter is and whether it is an independent investigative agency or not. senator ROTH. Let me go back and ask does RTC, in your judgment, exercise an adjudicative function? Ms. NOLAN. Senator, I'm sorry. You're asking me to answer a question I haven't looked at. I have stayed out of the review of these matters, the contacts, the Treasury-White House contacts. I have stayed out of the review of that matter, and I have not looked at this particular question.
August 3, 1994 - Part 7
(18:10:12) Senator ROTH. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that purportedly, the purpose of this memorandum was to determine when contacts with agencies by White House staff were to be banned. I did have a series of questions that I wanted to ask as to whether the contacts made by a number of White House personnel were within this .ban, but if I understand what you are saying, you are not that well acquainted with the memorandum to answer such questions; is ,that correct? Ms. NOLAN. Senator, I want to make clear, it's not the memorandum. It's applying the memorandum to the particular situation. If I were asked that question at the White House, I would do some -Tesearch. I would look at the question. And so Senator ROTH. But you do not know, if I understand your stateinent, as to whether or not this memorandum applies to RTC? Ms. NOLAN. It does not apply-it does not list the Resolution Trust Corporation as one of those agencies. That's correct. Senator ROTH. As I pointed out. But it does say that the list identiflied is only illustrative and so my question was whether or not the RTC, because of its adjudicative function, would be covered? 130 Senator DODD. Will my colleague yield on that one question? I think that may be stipulated. I'm not sure, but maybe if someone on the panel or someone on the staff here I don't believe that the RTC has, to use your words, an "adjudicative function." I may be wrong on that. Senator ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the witnesses that. That is what I am trying to determine. Senator SARBANES. That was a line of questioning of the Senator from Delaware. I think we'd better reserve it, Senator Roth, until your next round. We've already gone well over the time. There's a vote on, and we could recognize Senator Boxer and she could complete Senator ROTH. Could I just make one comment? Senator DODD. Could I make a parliamentary inquiry Mr. Chairman? Senator SARBANES. Certainly. Senator DODD, Is it a matter of fact that a function has an adjudicative function? That's not a debate. Senator ROTH. I would like to point out Senator SARBANES. I thought the question was put to Ms. Nolan and she gave a response to it on the basis of this memo; is that correct? Ms. NOLAN. My response, Senator, was that I could not answer that question without looking at the Resolution Trust Corporation's charter and understanding its functions, and I have not done that. Senator ROTH. I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that this regulation covers agencies with investigative functions as well, but my time is up. The CHAIRMAN. We have a vote underway. I think what we'll do at this point, the bells are going to ring and Senator SARBANES. They have. The CHAIRMAN. I know. The second bells are going to ring, indicating that our time is very short on the roll call so I think what we'll do is take a brief recess for about 10, 12 minutes, It will give you folks a chance Senator DAMATO. There are two votes-there's a possibility, Mr. Chairman, of two votes, and so that might require us, and they would have--I don't think we'll be back for at least 20, 25 minutes just to let the witnesses know. The CHAIRMAN. Well, if there prove to be two votes, we'll alert the staff and they can tell you and then you can plan accordingly. As soon as we're free from voting on the Floor, we'll be back and we'll resume. The Committee stands in recess until the voting period ends. (18:14:04) [Recess.]
BEE on thistle
BEE on thistle
Misc
Soapy Smith's "SKULL"SKAGWAY
Misc
Mendenhall glacier from side and front
Misc
Mendenhall
Misc
Alaska Poor
Misc
Juneau gardensGovener's mansionMrs Leach's(?) flowers
Misc
JuneauRoad to Mend. Sl (Fireweed)cotton
Misc
Port HoleLynn Canal
August 3, 1994 - Part 7
(18:45:34) Senator BOXER. What about the notion of having a private attor- ney deal with a matter that occurred before the President was President? Does that have any merit to you? Can you see where that might be better, to the press talk to the private attorney? Mr. SLOAN. There is absolutely a legitimate role with respect to private attorneys with respect to private legal matters but what was very much the context of these conversations was a govern- mental function, a legitimate governmental function about respond- ing to press inquiries. And that's not Senator BOXER. Because the press inquiry excuse me was dealing with how the agencies were handling this. Is that why you feel it was appropriate? Mr. SLOAN. And because the White House gets questions about the Clintons. If the Clintons were named in a criminal referral, if that was a news story, the White House would get questions about that. And as the Office of Government Ethics report relates, it's well established that that's a legitimate White House function to respond to those questions. So it seems to me for that kind of gov- ernmental function, it is entirely appropriate for White House per- sonnel to be involved. Senator BOXER. I see that my time is up and I will hold for an- other round. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Domenici. Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I wonder, Mr. Eggleston, if I could give you the letters of March 2nd and March 3rd, Do you happen to have those? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, I can't remember. I think Senator Mack gave me a letter of March 2nd. I do not have the letter of March 3rd. Senator DOMENICI Could you put the two in front of you. First, let me say to all four of you, I don't think we would be agonizing until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning if we had received answers like you've given us today. I want to tell you that I very much appre- ciate the fact that when you know something, you tell us. When "You don't, you tell us you don't. You've been very, very forthright. Mr. Eggleston, the important subject matter for me-and I'll only take one subject-is my concern about the testimony before this Committee; the way the answers were given by the acting head of the RTC and what he did afterwards. Could I just review with you? I' don't know why you did this, but I'm impressed with the fact that the White House seemed much more aware that we were not get- ting the whole story from Roger Altman than he was. And as I un- derstand it, before either of those letters was mailed, if they were mailed on the dates stated, a meeting occurred in the White House. You were part of that. Mr. Podesta headed that team up. Could you just tell me briefly---I know this is repetitious-but what was the I principal concern about the Roger Altman testimony before us? 134 Mr. EGGLESTON. By that time, we had actually identified three issues, and they are as follows: the first was the failure in response to a question from Senator Bond, actually, to identify the two meetings in the fall of 1993. The second issue was in the questioning from Senator Gramm' describing the February 2nd meeting, the failure to mention that one of the subjects that had been covered was the issue of recusal. The third issue, which I think we never raised with Mr. Altman, the third issue was the issue of how the meeting of February' 2 had gotten set up. He testified the meeting had gotten set up through Mr. Nussbaum. Mr. Nussbaum said it was not set up through him, and that he had, in fact, had only learned of the meeting just before it took place. I think that's an issue that we decided was not of a sufficient level of magnitude. I don't thin that Mr. Podesta raised the third issue with Mr. Altman. I think he raised the first two. Senator DOMENICI. My recollection from somebody's testimony under oath that we have available is that Mr. Podesta also raised the subject of the criminal referrals and that he got a response from Roger Altman indicating that Roger Altman didn't want to talk about that, or it wasn't appropriate that he talk about it then. Do you recall that?
The Falls
Ribbon Falls
The Falls
Yosemite Falls--PANS all.
The Falls
Yosemite falls ***
The Falls
Bridalveil--top onlyAll heavy sprayDark background
The Falls
Bridalveil thru trees and across the river **
The Falls
Bridalveil Fall
The Falls
The spray of Bridalveil **
The Falls
Bridalveil