Advanced Search
Lumberjack 'rolleo' Kings Vie In Loggers Water Sport Meet
High contrast, not bad some drop out spots on imagery 'Block rolling' too is excitingly pictured in timbermen's battle against wet odds.
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:20:28) I raised some issues with Mr. Cutler, who is still here, in my opening statement today. I'm going to insert in the record a legal brief we have that makes it clear to us that the RTC is an inde- pendent agency. I just want to make it clear that I hope, whether the Executive Branch agrees with that or not, they'll act in a manner that respects our view so that we're not back in here again on some matter that challenges that question. I don't foresee a problem in that area, but I want to make it clear that that's our feeling on it. Let me say just a couple of other things, and I apologize for the length of this time, but there are several wrap-up things that I think need to be said. I think, with respect to the first day of our bearings, the tragic death of Mr. Vincent Foster, that the record is now complete in that area. It's just a terrible loss in terms of the circumstances that attach to that situation. But, I think that we were charged with reviewing those facts, and we've done so. I think that issue is clearly examined and settled and should be seen as so. I would hope that it could be left there so this family can deal with the grief they feel. Anybody that has a hard time thinking about it ought to think about how they would feel if it happened in their immediate family, and how you try to pick up the pieces and go on from there. It's been said by many that Fiske, Mr. Fiske, the Special Counsel, has already came back and said, with respect to the areas in which we've done our review, that there was no basis for criminal action that he saw. His finding was clear on that. That was an important finding by him. We found, at least in my view-I don't see anything that obviates that, but I'm not speaking for the Committee and to the extent that there is anything in our record that is in addition to what be may have, then, obviously, we, in effect, are automatically conveying that to the Justice Department and to him, so that be can add that to his body of information. I want to just finish now by saying two things. I want to, again, thank the staff. When I was paying a tribute to you for the extraordinary effort you made you were out of the room, but I can't thank you enough. We'd never met 6 weeks ago and we made this climb together to get this job done. I'm deeply appreciative to you. I thank your family for the sacrifice. And the same with the staff here. We've got exceptional people at work here. They work 7 days a week. They don't complain about it and they do fine work for the country. That's the way our system works and thank goodness we have people who are willing to do the work. In terms of individuals in this situation, I set forth, in my opening statement, a test that I was going to apply with respect to statements by witnesses before this Committee, both depositions and direct testimony. I said that people are going to have to be ac- curate, complete, and fully responsive to the questions, and I meant by that, not on the third try, the 10th try, the 15th try, 10 800 days later, 20 days later, or 50 days later, but at the time the ques tion was posed. We've got some problems in that area, and I think the record is there to establish that. I'm troubled about that. I'm troubled about the fact that in the instances of some, I thought that was still a factor we were having to deal with right here this room. My view is that, I'm going to express some of my personal judgments in that regard directly, and to people who are in positions to receive that information. We don't have any power to hire or fire anybody. I mean, that's not our job, nor should it be, although we can have strong feelings about the performance of individuals. In terms of my personal views, my first instinct is to want to convey I that in a direct, personal way, as opposed to a public way, but I think there are issues outstanding in that area that are important I think it's absolutely critical and should be clearly understood because I made this point as directly as I could to the Treasury Secretary when he was here and to Mr. Cutler, when he was a witness and he is still here in the room, that we can't have a situation in the future where anybody in the Executive Branch comes before this Committee or any Committee of the Congress and evasive answer, an incomplete answer, or a less than the answer whatever the circumstances. And then, not at the earliest moment, if it's done by inadvertence, repair that fully. There are times when people can omit something from an answer because there's a misinterpretation or something doesn't come to mind or something can happen and that's understandable. We make an al- lowance for that.
Bison
PART 1 15:35:40 Huge Bison herd in migration 15:40:03 Huge Bison herd, Bison Bull bellowing CU 15:42:42 Huge Bison herd in migration, crossing slough
Elk
PART 1 17:33:52 Male Elk herd coming toward me 17:49:21 Male Elk drinks, crosses stream 17:52:53 Female Elk and two (2) calves cool off in river 22:18:27 Male Elk bedded, Bugle 22:23:37 Male Elk tear turf and herd harem of Female Elks 22:25:40 Female Elk CU. 22:31:03 Male Elks herd, tear turf, bed, scratch with antlers 22:34:34 Two (2) young Bull Elks spar 23:04:24 Big Male Elk feed in scenic area 23:08:30 Big Male Elk browse, urinate, yawn 23:11:38 Big Male Elk drinks, swims river .... shakes off water 23:14:59 Big Male Elk trash bush with antlers, angerly 23:25:40 Big Male Elk wade river, shake water off, walk 23:28:44 Big Male Elk cross highway 23:29:16 Big Male Elk browse on willows, trash bush 19:20:02 Big Male Elk and tourists 19:24:04 Big Male Elk bedded, bugle, gets up turf and masterbates 23:39:36 Big Bull Elk in meadow, herd cows into forest 23:40:53 Big Bull Elk rub antlers on pine, rubs resin on neck
Bison
PART 1 23:42:08 Big Bison Bull feed and scratch 10:53:57 Bison herd along river PART 2 10:57:21 Bison herd crossing river walking 11:01:37 Bison Bull rolls in dust backlit
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:26:00) I don't think that's what we're dealing with here, in some of these instances, so that is part of the reason why we're here. But, if nothing else is clear out of this, it's clear we can't have that. If this Government's going to work, we've got to have a situation where the information we get the first time is reliable. It's full, complete, honest, and direct. People can't go through graceful ducks or anything else, or whatever phrases anybody else wants to pick. Whether they're questions asked by someone on this side or on that side, every Senator's questions are important and every one needs to be answered fully and directly by every witness. Any other system just is not a working system in terms of democracy as I understand it. So, with that, I want to finally thank my colleagues. There 's no way in the world we could do this job without the tremendous commitment and talent of Senators like Senator Sarbanes and the others, going right down the aisle on our side, and Senator D'Amato and all of the rest of the Members on his side, and their staff. I think every Senator worked as hard on this assignment, in a short timeframe, as I have seen during my time in the Senate. It's not uncommon, by the way, for Senators to work that hard. I think every Senator works that hard, on a variety of issues, virtually every day. People bad a chance to see it here. They saw that when we had to go until late into the evening to fit this compressed timeframe problem that we had, everybody stepped up to the assignment and did it. I'm very grateful for that. 801 This is a team effort and this team, I think, performed in a way that I certainly feel proud about and I thank everyone for that cooperation. So, with that, unless there is anyone else seeking recognition, I'm going to indicate that we've concluded this phase--we've concluded our work, under Senate Resolution 229, in terms of the part that we could deal with at this stage. I thank all concerned. The Committee stands in recess. (14:27:59) [Whereupon, at 2:27 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] (14:28:00) Commentary of DON BODE and STEVE ROBERTS from tv studio
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:30:25) House Banking Committee Hearings resume at which several officials from the RTC or Resolution Trust Corporation testify
Safety in Offices office accidents
Safety in Offices office accidents. Created by the United States Navy for civilian workers.
Circus - marches - neg
Clowns - circus inside
Could be Spanish circus
Unique Trapeze Act
Unique Trapeze Act - Women swing by teeth. MS inside the big top as women in pink costumes are lifted into air by man in support frame pedaling a cycle contraption, once the momentum is going the women fly around hanging from their teeth, they look like butterflies as they spin & lift the arms of their winged costumes. the wings are eventually shed and the act returns to the ground. MS trapeze act with women in pink costumes spinning by their teeth.
Ext. circus (clowns)
Circus - people - outside tent
Lights on ride -night
March into and in tents - circus
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:10:00)(tape #10103 begins) people who don't have a legitimate Government 497 interest-I should note I don't agree with you that you had a legitimate Government interest. Number two, you can't do anything to destroy evidence or get rid of any evidence, and I don't think anybody here is willing to tell us under oath that documents didn't disappear, that things weren't altered, that files weren't searched on the basis of the nonpublic information which apparently, according to your testimony, not only did the President know, but it also went to Mr. Lyons. It may well have gone to Governor Tucker; it may have gone to others. (00:10:37) Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator, did you see my staff here the other day, the members of my staff who testified? Beth Nolan and Joel Klein and Neal Eggleston. Senator BOND. Yes. Mr. NUSSBAUM. And Cliff Sloan. Senator BOND. Yes, I did. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Did you think they were fairly impressive people? Senator BOND. I think I'm asking the questions, Mr. Nussbaum, but there were people in the White House who looked to you for guidance and you didn't give them the guidance. Mr. Gearan at least was not a lawyer. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I think Senator BOND. Let me ask you a question. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Can I respond to you? Senator BOND. I'm going to have to--are you going to extend the time? The CHAIRMAN. I'll extend your time. I think he ought to have a chance Mr. NUSSBAUM. If I can just respond. I surrounded myself in the White House and the Counsel's Office with excellent people. Some of the other people in the White House, especially Mr. Lindsey, are people of superb character, superb judgment, good lawyers. I don't have to tell them that you shouldn't misuse inside information or nonpublic information you're getting. These people knew their responsibilities, knew their roles. I didn't have to go around telling these people not to do that and indeed, Senator, with all respect, I recognize you feel strongly about this, too. With all respect, Senator, there is not a single shred of evidence that anybody misused this information in any way. Not a single thread of evidence that documents were destroyed, or people tipped off. Those are just, in my view, Senator, irresponsible charges when somebody makes them when there is no evidence for those charges. And the fact that I didn't tell people not to abuse their oath, it ,Wasn't necessary. These people know that as well as I, perhaps even better than 1. Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, if I may resume. would comment on that. I would make the statement that it's I think it's significant you used the term "shred of evidence," and unfortunately, that raises a question because as you and I know if evidence has disappeared, it would be very difficult to prove. That is not the charge that that was done in this case, but the danger of it is the reason that nonpublic information on criminal cases shouldn't be shared. Now, Mr. Lindsey did say that he had a discussion with Mr Lyons. Let me ask you, does the same standard apply to judges? You cited Justice Rehnquist. Had President Clinton appointed Altman and this case, a civil case, come before Mr. Altman, would Altman as a judge have to disqualify himself? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, I don't believe so. Senator BOND. Well, that may be the standard in the Southern District of New York, Mr. Nussbaum, but I've got to tell you just recently, a year ago, I had to file a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri. Some of the judges I had previously appointed to State judgeships. Others, I had voted, as a Senator, to confirm. One of them, our sole contact, said that 22 years ago, he had made a campaign contribution to me. All of them disqualified themselves. Now, as an advocate, you can make a strong case if you are trying to defend somebody (00:14:12)(tape #10097 ends) and keep them out of jail that what Mr. Altman did was proper, but if you wrote an ethics exam in a law school and said that in those circumstances a man in Mr. Alt --- - - position would not have to disqualify himself, I think you would get a failing grade because Mr. Altman was in the same position as Jay Stephens, where it would have been ridiculous and unfair for him to act upon it. Mr. Altman was not trying to duck his job, he was very aggres- sive in his job and he even faxed you information. Finally, I would say that when you talk about the need to tell the President everything because the President is so important, that is probably the most awe- inspiring statement of omnipotence that we have heard since, was it Louis XIV who said, "The state, it is I"-l'etat c'est moi. You have, I believe, contributed to the ethi- cal lapse that the White House suffered from so greatly in the last year.
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:15:18) Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator, you know Senator BOND, Consider that. Mr. NUSSBAUM. [continuing]. If you're going to flunk me on an ethics exam then I think you'll have to flunk also the ethics advisors of the Treasury Department who told Mr. Altman that he's not legally or ethically required to recuse himself, you're going to have to flunk the OGE-the Office of the Government Ethics-maybe you, as a professor grading these exams, are correct and I'm wrong, the OGE is wrong, the three ethics opinions of the Treasury Department are wrong. But there's another thing which you are saying which is so interesting because going in here I thought I was taking the Republican position or the position the Republican party has taken in the past with respect to the Special Counsel's statute. Senator Bond, the Republican party has opposed the Independent Counsel's statute, believing that an Attorney General appointed by the President could act, could perform her duty even with respect to cases against the President or high Executive officials. Now Congress has passed an Independent Counsel statute because it doesn't take that position. Most Republicans took that position. I happened to agree with that position. It sounds like maybe you don't agree with that position. Under that position, an appointee of the President would be fully entitled to investigate the President or to investigate other high officials of the Executive Branch. An appointee of the President 499 would be perfectly free and should do his or her duty. I have no doubt that Janet Reno, for example, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, would conduct an appropriate investigation of the President, of me, of you, of anybody, if it was the right thing to do. I didn't think we needed an Independent Counsel statute and man of your colleagues in your party also felt we didn't need an independent Counsel statute, When you tell me that Roger Altman cannot-it's just like Jay Stephens because he was appointed by the President-to me that totally undercuts and undermines the position taken by the Republican party with respect to this issue and the position I happen to agree with. Senator BOND. It's a position taken by Mr. Altman and, finally, he was able to act on it, The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry. Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, Good morning, Mr. Nussbaum. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Good morning, Senator. Senator KERRY. I want to associate myself, first of all, with the questions asked by Senator Sarbanes about the duality of the hat. I want to say to you, sir, that these are serious proceedings. We may joke here and there about being here late or whatever, but we're here and we know why we're here and it's a responsibility for all of us that we care about. I've listened to your full statement, I've listened to my colleagues and I really have to say to you, Mr. Nussbaum, your last page statement, I respect these different views, but let's be clear we're talking about legitimate differences of opinion- We're not talking about differences in ethical standards or standards of propriety. I disagree with you, based on the record. We are talking about a difference in an ethical standard and a standard of propriety. I must say to you, sir, and I say this as kind- ly as I can, but as strongly as I can, too, I find your arguments le- gally, ethically and politically indefensible, They are legally inde- fensible because you violated your own standards. You say on page 6 that we recognized that such contacts were potentially sensitive and as a general proposition they should not occur. It's sensitive enough to have called Mr. Eggleston in, but not sensitive enough to have known immediately that Mr. Ickes and Ms. Williams had no business being there to discuss this legal matter that belonged to you alone. fraud in Second, it is legally, I believe, wrong because there is a your argument. You are suggesting to this Committee that you didn't believe in "de facto or de jure recusal, ' yet Mr. Altman made it as clear as a bell to you in that meeting that it was de facto. You accepted that. You never said a word against it. You knew, according to his own testimony, that he was not going to have anything to do with this. So sworn duty, sworn duty. I mean, come on. He wasn't going out there to do his sworn duty because his sworn duty was not to do a "de facto recusal." But you accepted it was a "de facto recusal." He told you he was doing a "de facto recusal." And witness after witness has come to this Committee and said it didn't make a difference because he wasn't going to make a decision. He was not performing his sworn duty. 500 Mr. NUSSBAUM. I remember him saying--can I-if I'm interrupting Senator KERRY, I want to just finish and then I'm going to give you a chance Mr. NUSSBAUM. I'm sorry.
Game Birds - Scaled Quail
TAPE 1 Scaled Quail on brush pile
Game Birds - Bobwhite Quail
TAPE 1 Flock of Bob Whites by Quail feed
Game Birds - Scaled Quail
TAPE 1 Scaled Quail feed and run Scaled Quail run about Scaled Quail in a tree
Game Birds - Ring Necked Pheasant
TAPE 1 Female Ring-Necked Pheasants in cornfield Male and Female Ring-Necked Pheasants in brush and cornfield Male and Female Ring-Necked Pheasants in weeds Male and Female Ring-Necked Pheasants in cornfield running
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:20:23) Senator KERRY. Now, ethically, my other colleagues have talked about some of that, and I point, as they have, to a very, very clear statement in your own standard that you have read to this Con,. mittee tonight, and this morning. The standard you gave us is it will result in an appearance of conflict. Now you cite to us these other groups that have made a finding. I've read every one of their statements. I found them wanting. Because they, like you, stuck with-just stuck to the legalese and this is not a business just about legalese. You know, some Senators refuse PAC money. Some Senators don't take gifts. Some Senators never took honoraria. The law didn't require it, but people perceived what you have cited as a higher standard. I respectfully say to you that not to have been sensitive, ethically, to both the friendship, and no one has mentioned this, but also to the fact that everybody in this town talked about Mr. Altman as potential future Secretary of the Treasury. For him to walk into the White House after everyone he talked to had helped him make up his mind to recuse himself and it was their opinion and his that he should recuse himself, you should have said Roger, fine, it's your decision. But no, you're sitting here saying I kept telling him the bottom line was it was his decision, but a whole bunch of stuff comes in between from his boss, from his White House. So any sensitive employee to the future is going to be saying well, gee, they don't really want me to do this. Now, Senator Shelby said to you it was a mauling. I'm not going to characterize it as a mauling. I don't know what it was. All I know is this public employee had made up his mind to recuse himself. The people who worked for him thought he was going there to do it, He went in there to do it and he told you he was doing it and he came out of there not doing it. That's the bottom line. That's the bottom line. I agree with the Chairman, you should not have done anything. Instead, there was a different opinion. Then, ultimately, this man, after all of this notion of accepting sworn duty, recused himself for The New York Times editorial boy, Howell Rains. Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's right. That's right. Senator KERRY. So this is a serious issue here for this Committee to think about what happened in the context of politics, the ethics, and sort of the legal reasoning that you've given us. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Doesn't that show, Senator, why he recused himself? Senator KERRY. Beg your pardon? Mr. NUSSBAUM. When he recused himself in a conversation with Howell Rains of The New York Times, doesn't that really show Senator KERRY. It shows a lot of things. Mr. NUSSBAUM. It shows that he didn't want the public relations heat that would come from acting in this matter and, Senator Senator KERRY. Mr. Nussbaum, that is where you are ethically failing here because we live with public relations heat every day. It's the bread and butter of our life. 501 Mr. NUSSBAUM. Right, and you should take it. Senator KERRY. And it is a reflection of the public which is what this country is all about. What happened, in this case, is you were dealing with legalese and not a sensitivity to how the public would perceive this, which is ultimately what motivated him to react, which is ultimately what keeps this country straight and true as a democracy. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator, you and I have a profound philosophical difference here. Senator KERRY. If you think you could ram down the throats of Americans the notion that there was not somehow an appearance of a problem in his being there given the fact that he had this close relationship, then I think you are just missing the standard by which we're living in this community today. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I'm missing it, the OGE is missing it, his ethics advisors are missing it Senator KERRY. No, because I'll tell you what, if you read the OGE report, the OGE report specifically said they could not rule as to Mr. Altman's behavior with respect to the September 29th transfer and they only ruled, if you'll read page 2, as to the Treasury employees, not the White House employees. Don't throw that report at me again. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator Senator KERRY. That's what it says. Mr. NUSSBAUM. It says what it says, Senator, Senator KERRY. I'll read it to you. Could I have the report, please? I mean, let's-you know, you want to say it says what it says. Let me read it to you. Page 2, second paragraph: Because your authority as Secretary of the Treasury relates to employees of the Department, the report of the Inspectors General is necessarily focused upon the activities of officials of the Treasury Department. For that reason our analysis is not intended to cover, nor should it in any way reflect upon, the actions of individuals who are employed by the White House. We could put that in the record at this point.
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:25:34) Mr. NUSSBAUM. 1. don't object to that, Senator, but the report also indicates that Mr. Altman had no legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself. That's what Senator KERRY. I agree, it does reflect that. Mr. NUSSBAUM. And that's what Mr. Altman told me. Senator KERRY. But I also read that they took out each of the sort of legal, codified concepts of recusal and frankly, they had to do with a public employee affecting the private sector or a public employee affecting private gain, private decision, but it didn't reflect any applicable notion of ethics with respect to a public employee's impact on another public institution, particularly one that was involved with an investigation. And you yourself were sensitive enough about the investigation to state in your own policy that you shouldn't meet except rarely. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator, he came into our off-ices on Yebruary 2nd and he said I'm inclined to recuse myself, but I am not legally or ethically required to do so. I've been told that and I don't believe it. And I respectfully, Senator, disagree with you. Senator KERRY. You're entitled to and I'm not going to lambast you. Mr. NUSSBAUM. When somebody says that to me, I think then you have to do your duty. And if there's political heat, if Howell Rains is going to write editorials against you, if Republicans are going to criticize you, so be it. Senator KERRY. So do you still believe he should not have recused himself? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, sir. Senator KERRY. Well, then, I'm very happy you're not serving as President's Counsel today. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Domenici. Senator DOMENICI. First, let me state for the record, Mr. Chairman, that I agree with you and I might also state that, all things considered, your statement tonight is very courageous and these whole hearings have been a testimony of your fairness. Now we have a testimonial beyond your fairness in conducting matters here, your straightforwardness and integrity, and I thank you very much for it. Mr. Nussbaum, I trust your integrity as much as anyone else's, and I had a lot of difficulty, as I heard you talk about the duty to sit rule. Frankly, you almost remind me of the law professors we have who taught a different kind of law than today, and you might be that kind of lawyer. I'm not at all sure you'd be out there seeking cases like some of them are, which you and I learned was champerty when we went to law school. But, frankly, it bothered me that you carried an analogy of a duty to sit rule to this situation. Now, frankly, there is no longer a duty to sit rule; that rule has been changed by statute. Title 48, section 455 no longer includes the duty to sit rule, but rather says, it obliges judges to recuse where their impartiality, and now I will, quote, "might be reasonably questioned." Now, frankly, I believe" that is exactly-that is exactly carried over to the last sentence of the so-called ethics rule that you read to us in our statement. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I agree with that. I agree it's carried over there--I and I also believe Senator DOMENICI. I'm going to let you answer but I want to fin- ish my thoughts. I'm not at all sure even now, having heard you, my self. But about the total reason for Roger Altman not recusing him I am convinced more than ever, that he shouldn't have asked you,'; if he did, and you should not have told him, if you did. My own conviction is he went there convinced that he was going to recuse himself.