Advanced Search
Bears Alaska
Bears Alaska
Brown Bear (Alaska)
Brown Bear (Alaska)
Bears, Cubs
Bears, Cubs
Bear Fishing (Alaska)
Bear Fishing (Alaska)
Bear Eats Plant
Bear Eats Plant
Bears Fishing (Alaska)
Bears Fishing (Alaska)
Bears Fishing (Alaska)
Bears Fishing (Alaska)
Bear Cubs and Bear's Fishing
Bear Cubs and Bear's Fishing
Penguins (Matches Orig.)
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #98024 Penguins (Matches Orig.)
Penguins From Campbell - Mithun
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #98024 (labeled 43-09) Penguins From Campbell - Mithun
Bear
Bear
House In The Snow - Woods - Trees
House In The Snow - Woods - Trees
Penguins
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #98024 Penguins
Polar Bears - Ship, Ice Bergs
Polar Bears - Ship, Ice Bergs
Bear Fishing
Bear Fishing
August 2, 1994 - Part 13
(02:00:43) I mean this is here because RTC procedures were not followed. Are my colleagues concerned that a U.S. Congressman published almost in full RTC sequences and notes from an investigator? That it has been identified publicly as Jean Lewis? Are we concerned that in a campaign in 1992 a candidate had an article appear about this issue? And subsequently there were criminal referrals and a U.S. Attorney may have been pressured? Now if that's true Senator GRAMM. Is that a Senator you are talking about? Senator KERRY. No, but I'm saying-no, candidate Clinton, this appeared-this is a matter of fact and it's appeared publicly. Now, if you're in the White House and you know there is somebody in the RTC who has already leaked information about you and you know by virtue of public accounts, at least to the best of your ability to believe them because they're in the newspapers, that a U.S. Attorney might have been pressured just prior an election to try to indict you. All of a sudden you are hearing through these other public sources that the RTC was hell-bent-for-leather to investigate some- thing that happened years ago in Texas or Arkansas or something) would you not, in the norms of political behavior in Washington, have some concern that it be fair, that there be some sort of proc- ess that you don't have this person who was willing to leak, this person who was willing to pressure, then engaged in a hell-bent- 561 for-leather, get-them-at-any-cost effort. Now, I don't know if that's happened. Senator GRAMM. Would you like me to respond to that, I can do it very briefly. The answer is I'd be very concerned, but given I wasn't born yesterday, I'd stay way far away from it. Senator KERRY. I agree with it but let's get there, you see, because what we've heard are a whole set of other kind of conspiracy theories and concepts. I'm not prepared to draw a conclusion et, but I have kind of a basic commonsense streak that tells me that this is not what a lot of people have tried to make it out to be, that some folks may have had some bad judgment Mr. Altman has very candidly said, he should have recused himeself, he should have stepped back, he should have done it in writing, and he should not 'have gone to the meeting and so forth. But it seems to me what you may have here more than some grand conspiracy is a bad job of some damage control based on some paranoia about people in the RTC who might be on a runaway express train. Now, I don't see any evidence of any more than that. And I don't think you can show us a lot of evidence of more than that. Maybe some people in the White House behaved not so well in bow to deal with this, but nobody interfered with it. His recusal didn't affect anything one way or the other. The President signed the statute of limitations that continued this. The White House called Mr. Altman and they said we're concerned about your testimony, It's not out in full. I don't want to draw a conclusion tonight. I think also that it's wrong for you to draw a conclusion tonight. It is appropriate for us to sit reasonably to measure and to judge this, and I just think we ought to do that and we obviously shouldn't do it at 2 a.m. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think we've bad a good full day and Mr. Altman, let me say to you and your family who's been with you throughout the day, I know it's been taxing but necessary as you well know. You indicated a desire to stay tonight as long as necessary and you've done that. We do have other witnesses to hear from. I would just express a view, before we recess until tomorrow morning, that I do think we need to hear all the evidence. We've got to bear all the witnesses we've got others to come, and in due course, all of us will be called upon to make judgments. When we have all the information, I think that's probably the time to do it. The Committee stands, in recess until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. (02:05:13) [Recess.] [Whereupon, at 2:05 a.m. the hearing was adjouned to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., on Wednesday, August 3, 1994. (02:05:15) Hearings hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG close out coverage from tv studio) (02:05:44) WETA logo, PBS funding credits
Biosatellite
Biosatellite 2 returns to earth, carrying its cargo of insects and plant life. The two-day space voyage tests the effects of radiation and weightlessness on life forms. Workers carry the satellite into a laboratory. Its' lid is removed, and experiments are extracted. Lab technicians look at specimens and fill out paperwork.
Burst Dam
At least 60 are dead in the Himalayan foothill villages in India, following heavy rains, which force a dam to burst. Entire families are swept away leaving dead cattle and ruined crops. The dam is shown at its' breaking point. Flood water flows downstream. Various shots of villagers hit by the water. Dead pig and mud covered crops. Children and women sit in the remains of their homes. Sad expressions, poverty, man crying.
Gibraltar Votes
Residents of Gibraltar vote overwhelmingly to continue under British rule, rather to become Spanish. Spain has recently blockaded the "Rock" and urged its "de-colonization". A British crowd gathered outside of a polling station stands in front of a Coca-Cola sign. Pro-British supporters are costumed in red, blue and white. Voters cast ballots. An old man in the crowd wears dark sunglasses and gives the PEACE SIGN to the camera as he enters a building. In the background a woman smiles. Amongst a crowd of voters a family gives the PEACE SIGN to the camera as they stand in a city street- father, son and wife.
August 4, 1994 - Part 1
(09:00:21)(tape #10087 begins) Hearing coverage title screen (09:00:25) Hearings hosts KEN BODE and NINA TOTENBERG introduce day's hearing from tv studio, (09:02:45) President BILL CLINTON gives a lengthy answer to a reporter's question at a press conference about if he'll keep on ROGER ALTMAN in the treasury department (09:04:33) Back in studio Bode and Totenberg speak with Senator CHRISTOPHER BOND (09:12:20) Hearing begins: HEARINGS RELATING TO MADISON GUARANTY S&L AND THE WHITEWATER DEVEL OPMENT CORPORATION-WASHINGTON, DC PHASE THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1994 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. The Committee met at 9:12 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RIEGLE The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. Let me welcome all those in attendance this morning, and invite those in the room to find seats so that we can begin. Let me indicate that we are starting today our fifth day of hearings being conducted here by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on the so-called Madison Guaranty Whitewater matter which was authorized, and instruction to do this provided to us, by Senate Resolution 229. There are three panels that are scheduled to appear before us today. All of the witnesses testifying today are current or former White House personnel. The first panel, now seated before us, and that we will hear from soon, consists of Thomas "Mack" McLarty, who is the Senior Advisor to the President and the former Chief of Staff to the President. Also Margaret Williams, Chief of Staff to the First Lady of the United States. The second panel consists of Harold Ickes, who is the Deputy Chief of Staff to the President. Mr. George Stephanopoulos who is a Senior Advisor to the President. Mr. John Podesta, who is Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. And then finally, in that panel, Mr. Bruce Lindsey, who serves as Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor. The third panel will consist of Bernard Nussbaum, who served as the former Counsel to the President of the United States. I should say, by the way, that the White House has been very cooperative in making witnesses available to us, and we appreciate that. 270 As with our prior hearings, we are looking forward to listening to our witnesses, so that they can help fill out all the information that we need to have regarding events relating to whether or not there was any improper conduct that may have occurred regarding communications between officials of the White House and the Department of the Treasury or the Resolution Trust Corporation relating to the Madison Guaranty issue and related matters. So let me now, having introduced our two witnesses that are here this morning, ask you, if you would please, to stand and raise your right hand while I administer the oath. [Witnesses sworn.] Very good. Thank you. I believe you both have opening statements that you wish to make, and Mr. McLarty, we will start with you, and we would like your statement at this time. Senator BRYAN. Mr- Chairman, if those opening statements are available to the rest of the Committee, may we have them distributed? Thank you. [Pause.] The CHAIRMAN. Let me just say, Senator Bryan, and I appreciate your request, and the statements, we are getting them, but we are getting them, because of the pressure of time, pretty much just before witnesses appear, but it is very, important that Members have them available for reference. Mr. McLarty.
August 4, 1994 - Part 1
(09:15:50) TESTIMONY OF THOMAS F. McLARTY, III, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. McLARTY. Mr. Chairman, Senator DAmato, and other Members of the Committee, my name is Mack McLarty, and I currently serve as Counselor to the President As you know, it was my privilege to serve as the President's Chief of Staff from the time of his inauguration until June 17th of this year. I testified before the House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and I provided a written statement to that Committee. And, Mr. Chairman, as you have already discussed, I have requested that I be permitted to attach that statement to this one. I would like to simply summarize that testimony here so that we can move promptly to your questions. Let me say at the outset that the White House very much respects the role of this Committee and its oversight responsibilities. As you know, the President instructed all White House personnel to cooperate fully with your inquiry and to appear voluntarily when asked to do so. As you also are aware, a number of independent authorities have reviewed the contacts between the Treasury and the White House concerning the Madison matter. The Special Counsel, the Grand Jury, the Office of Government Ethics and the White House Counsel. And they have all determined that the contacts violated no laws. 271 The Office of Government Ethics and the White House Counsel, Mr. Cutler, examined the contacts in light of ethical standards, which of course are tougher than legal ones. I specifically asked Mr. Cutler to do that and to do so in hindsight. Both he and the Office of Government Ethics concluded that no one acted unethically. Even if I am repeating the obvious, I want to make certain that Congress and the American people understand a very critical point. No one attempted to influence the RTC's decisionmaking. No one attempted to influence the RTC's decision on whether or when to bring claims against individuals in connection with the failure of Madison. As we apply hindsight to these events, however, it is obvious to all of us that some of the contacts were unwise. The White House has already implemented Mr. Cutler's suggestions, and they will assure in the future that all contacts with regulatory agencies about on- going reviews and investigations will be approved by or, even better, limited to White House Counsel. I would like to emphasize, as I did before the House Committee, the importance of keeping the Madison Whitewater matter in perspective with some backdrop. The period the Committee is reviewing extends roughly from the end of September to the beginning of March. And during that period, the White House was extraordinarily busy and very productive, even though some time, of some White House personnel, was spent responding to various Whitewater inquiries and controversies. Specifically, we concluded the North American Free Trade Agreement and lifted the sanctions against South Africa. We reinstituted the Super 301 Trade Powers. We obtained a GATT agreement which, as all of you know on this Committee, had been outstanding for a number of years, and the President convened the APEC conference in Seattle and brought our G-7 allies to Detroit for a major conference on jobs. At the same time, the President was traveling to Europe, bringing his leadership to NATO and outlining his partnership for peace initiative, and holding major talks with President Yeltsin and other Russian leaders. On the heels of last year's economic legislation, which was critical to getting our fiscal household in better order, we set out to improve the social fabric of our country. Working closely with the Members of Congress, we enacted major educational reform, including Goals 2000.
August 4, 1994 - Part 1
(09:20:24) As all of you know, the President introduced major health and welfare reform legislation that our country so badly needs, and after getting the Brady Bill passed, we are on the threshold of passing a sweeping and a meaningful crime bill. And our 1995 budget and related appropriations bills are moving forward in an orderly and a timely manner. I also want to emphasize, and to say very sincerely, that the people who work in the White House are some of the finest people that I have ever known. They are dedicated public servants and represent our Nation's very best, as they should. It was a privilege for me to be their Chief of Staff and it continues to be a privilege for me to work with them on a daily basis. If there were errors, they were made in good faith. None of US are perfect and none of us ought to assert that we are. And I am confident that this Committee, like the Special Counsel, the Office of Government Ethics, and the White House Counsel will conclude that no one did anything wrong, that we served our President and our country well, and that now it is time for us to get back to work. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. McLarty. Ms. Williams, we would like your statement now please. TESTIMONY OF MARGARET A. WILLIAMS, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY, WASHINGTON, DC MS. WILLIAMS. I am Margaret Ann Williams, Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady. I am grateful to Chairman Riegle and the Members of the Senate Banking Committee for the opportunity to address you concerning my very limited contact with the Treasury Department in connec. tion with the work of the Resolution Trust Corporation. That contact was confined to a meeting on February 2nd of this year, and an encounter with Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman several days later. But prior to my testimony, I think the Committee might find it useful to know a little about my professional background and my duties and responsibilities as Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady. My appointment to President Clinton's staff came after a brief stint with the Clinton-Gore campaign, where I served as Mrs. Clinton 's communications director. I joined the staff of the Children's Defense Fund in 1985, as a senior media analyst responsible for developing and overseeing an advertising campaign on teen pregnancy prevention. In 1988, 1 became CDS director of media affairs and served on CDS's six member management committee. Prior to CDS, I worked for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, developing a media relations program for that organization. I have served as a campaign press secretary and a national and congressional campaign secretary and held a number of media-related jobs. I hold a master's degree from the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania. As one of seventeen Assistants to the President, I participate, as directed by the Chief of Staff to the President, in management issues and communications meetings and work groups. As Chief of Staff to the First Lady, I manage, direct, and advise a staff of thirteen who support the activities of the First Lady. Those areas include policy, press relations, White House events and social activities, scheduling and correspondence. Because of Mrs. Clinton's involvement in Health Care policy., spend a good deal of time facilitating selective Health Care admin- istrative and policy issues across White House departments and the Cabinet. Late last year, the number of Whitewater press inquiries began to increase and my staff was required to spend more and more time answering these questions. Let me make it clear that I was not involved in the legal representation of the President or Mrs. Clinton. My activities with regard to Whitewater generally involved addressing management and information concerns related to overwhelming media interest in the matter. I made a conscious decision that I and other members of the First Lady's staff would not use our time with her discussing Whitewater unless we were trying to obtain facts to answer press inquiries, facts which could not be found elsewhere. I believed that our priority, and it was my job to keep us focused on our priority, was health care, and that we could keep our focus and help Mrs. Clinton to keep her focus by using the time we had with her on health care and on her many official and social obligations. Let me now address my involvement in the meeting of February 2, 1994.
Elizabeth II
The "Queen Elizabeth" is launched in Clydebank, Scotland, by Queen Elizabeth. The push-button launch sends the lady who replaces the Queens "Mary" and Elizabeth down the ways, after a slight delay. A panoramic shot of the ship in harbor. Dignitaries gather around the queen who stands at a microphone. The queen pushes the launch button to embark the ship. The ship slides down a ramp and into the sea. Various shots are made of the decline. The ship rest in the harbor.
August 4, 1994 - Part 1
(09:25:29) The meeting was placed on my calendar by my assistant. She noted in the entry that the Office of the Chief of Staff wanted me to attend a meeting regarding the statute of limitations. This was the only information I had about the meeting prior to joining it. I had no discussions with Mr. Altman about the issue raised at the meeting prior to the meeting, nor did I have any contact with anyone at the Treasury Department concerning the subject of this meeting prior to it being held. I joined the February 2nd meeting in progress. Mr. Altman, with whom I had had previous contacts, as a member of the Administration's health care team, was speaking to the assembled group. As I recall, Mr. Altman was explaining a process by which the Resolution Trust Corporation staff would present to Mr. Altman a recommendation as to whether or not to seek a waiver of the statute of limitations from the President and Mrs. Clinton in connection with the RTC's investigation of an Arkansas bank. The significance of this for my office was that if and when a waiver were sought, it was sure to generate a new wave of press inquiries, to which my office, in conjunction with the rest of the White House, should be ready to respond. Mr. Altman went on to explain that he might not be the official to whom his waiver issue would be presented. In this context, he raised the issue of recusal from the process he was describing. He then explained that if he recused himself, a member of the RTC staff would make the final decision. He also stated that, in any case, if he did not recuse himself, he intended to follow the RTC staff recommendation, whatever it might be. I took him to mean that he did not see any need to overrule the RTC staff and that they would decide the proper way to discharge their duties. I then expressed my personal reaction to what Mr. Altman had said, questioning why he would recuse himself if he intended to follow the staff recommendation. 274 It seemed to me, by accepting the staff recommendation, no one would challenge his integrity. I recall Mr. Nussbaum responding to my statement by saying it was a decision that Mr. Altman would have to make. I do not have a clear recollection of the rest of the meeting. it lasted for approximately 45 minutes? I left the meeting when it was over. I took no action, other than to make a mental note to be alert to events on this issue as they unfolded. Several days after the meeting on February 2nd, I received a call from Mr. Altman telling me that he had decided not to recuse himself, and asking if I could gather a few White House staff members so he could make his announcement. I do not recall if Mr. Altman specified the staff members; however, I did call the White House Counsel's Office and reached Mr. Nussbaum or Mr. Eggleston, I cannot recall whom. I called Mr.'Ickes and Mr. Stephanopoulos. Mr. Altman stopped by my office in the west wing shortly thereafter and spoke briefly to the individuals who had gathered in my office, and then hurried away to his next appointment. That concludes my prepared remarks and I welcome any questions this Committee might have. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Let me pick up right at the end of your statement on this second meeting when Mr. Altman came back to indicate that he had decided not to recuse himself. What did he say in that meeting?. Ms. WILLIAMS. He said I am not going to recuse myself. I have decided not to recuse myself The CHAIRMAN. How long would you say that meeting lasted? MS. WILLIAMS. It did not last long at all, because Mr. Altman had another appointment to get to. He was in fact standing, as I recall, and had his briefcase in his hand. The CHAIRMAN. Did he give his reasons? Ms. WILLIAMS. No, he did not, not that I recall. The CHAIRMAN. Now, do I understand, you indicate that your best estimate is that the meeting the day before lasted about 45 minutes? Now last night, Mr. Eggleston estimated that about half the, meeting time was devoted to the recusal issue. Would that be your recollection, or not? Ms. WILLIAMS. I have not thought about the amount of time,' quite frankly. I just remember, on the whole, it was about 45 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want you to think about it for a minute. How long do you think the recusal part would have taken, as a percentage of the whole meeting? Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, since I came in late to the meeting, it is dif- ficult for me to say if it were half of the meeting. I do not recall, the exact time that I came into the meeting, but it was in progress, They had settled into a meeting.