Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4520863
label
President - Wright Patman Investigation Background (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4520863
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
President - Wright Patman Investigation Background (1)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Executive-Legislative relations
Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Governmental investigations
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4520863
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-10-01
month
10
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1972-09-01
month
9
year
1972
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
dc21b5dfbfa0368d
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 55, folder "President - Wright Patman
Investigation Background (1)" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford
Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 55 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
WASHINGTON POST
September 7, 1972
p. A-5
Excerpt
'WANDERING FUNDS' OF GOP NOW TOPIC FOR BANKING UNIT
Democratic Committee staff members asserted that the
objection to the Watergate inquiry from Republican
Committee members was at the direction of Richard K. Cook,
deputy assistant to the President for congressional relations.
Cook denied this yesterday and said he met Brown in
the hallway several days ago. "I inquired as to the status
of the investigation, " Cook said. He said he gave "no
advice
That's a Committee affair.' "
RALD 13 FORD LIBRARY
WASHINGTON POST
September 30, 1972
p. A-1
Excerpts
GOP OPPOSITION PERILS HOUSE WATERGATE PROBE
Only last week Patman expressed confidence that the
hearings would be held. Yesterday he said he understood
that a White House effort to stop the inquiry has been
coordinated by Richard K. Cook, deputy assistant to the
President.
*
*
*
*
Cook, a former minority staff member of Patman's committee,
is a White House congressional liaison.
He said yesterday he has been too busy with other
matters to pay attention to the Watergate case and has had no
contact with banking committee staff or members.
A banking committee source said Cook had made inquiries
on the scope and nature of the planned investigation as
recently as last week.
BERRED FORD LIBRARY
WASHINGTON POST
October 4, 1972 p. A-1
Excerpts
BUGGING HEARINGS REJECTED
House Panel Defeats Bid by Patman
Rep. Garry Brown (R.Mich.), the key figure in
engineering the defeat, acknowledged in an interview
that he worked with the Justice Department and Rep.
Gerald R. Ford (R.Mich.), the House minority leader,
to block the hearings.
Brown denied a charge by Patman that the White
House brought "all kinds of pressure," but added:
"I would have to presume that the White House wouldn't
want further attention paid to this. I'm not so stupid
to have to be told."
A letter circulated to the 15 Republican Committee
members by Minority Leader Ford telling them the
importance of the vote.
.
Two meetings called by the ranking Republican on
the Committee, William B. Widnall (R.-N.J.), "to discuss
the merits of the hearings," according to Rep. Margaret M.
Heckler (R.-Mass.)
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
NEW YORK TIMES October 4, 1972
p. A-1
Excerpt
HOUSE PANEL BARS PRE-NOV. 7 INQUIRY INTO BUGGING CASE
Decision Virtually Rules Out Congressional Hearings
Until after the Election
White House Accused
Patman Charges Pressure -- Six Democrats Among Majority
in 20-15 Vote
'Facts Will Come Out'
"I predict that the facts will come out, " Mr. Patman
said, "and when they do, I am convinced they will reveal
why the White House was so anxious to kill the committee's
investigation. The public will fully understand why this
pressure was mounted."
But Representative William B. Widnall of New Jersey,
the committee's ranking Republican member, denied Mr. Patman's
allegations of pressure from the Nixon Administration.
Mr. Widnall said he had had "no contact with the White House
at all in connection with this investigation."
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
LG:22-A
November 5, 1973
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
H-230, The Capitol
Washington, D. C.
Dear Jerry:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation today, I am forwarding to you herewith
a copy of the sworn statement I filed with the Ervin Committee relative to
the allegations made by Mr. Dean when he testified before that Committee
early this summer.
Although my statement makes no direct reference to Dean's allegations concerning
Involvement of the Republican leadership In the House of Representatives
relative to the Patman hearings, the statement does correctly reflect the
general situation which existed at that time. As a practical matter, Mr. Dean
at no time during the course of his direct testlmony before the Ervin Committee
alleged that you personally had been in any say Involved, his references In
that testimony having been to "the Republican leadership of the House" (page
106 of his testimony); "Republican leaders" (page 188); and, "House Republican
leaders" (page 109).
Rather than In connection with Dean's testlmony, I belleve your name became
associated with the Patman hearings through press reports at that time to the
effect that you had met with the Republican members of the Banking and Currency
Committee. Of course, as you know, you did meet with us on two occasions, but
each of those meetings had been requested by Mr. Widnall, the ranking member,
and the other Republican members of the Committee primarily for the purpose of
apprising you of the slauation which existed and to seek any advice which you
and Mr. Arends might care to proffer.
In addition and as was noted by the media at that time, at the request of the
Republican members of the Banking and Currency Committee you sent a letter to
all Rapublican members of the Committee urging them to be present for the vote
on October 3, stating It to be your opinion, and properly so, that our system
of criminal Justice dictated against Congressional hearings while criminal
proceedings were pending. Of course, this Is the position taken by even
Archlbald Cox when he urged the Ervin Committee to suspend Its hearings earller
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
- 2 -
November 5, 1973
this year.
I regret that I cannot provide a more substantlve response to any suggestions
which may have been made that you were In any way Improperly Involved In the
Banking and Currency CommIttee action, but as you know It Is next to Impossible
to "prove the negative."
With best regards,
Sincerely,
GARRY BROWN
Enclosure
BERALB FDRD LIBRART
essions
of
Appendix A:
hould
be
of
any
Status Report of
tactics.
idards
of
Cases
political
estigative
hority
to
onduct
in
ago,
an
WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE
with
CRIMINAL ACTIONS
proached
andidates
The following matters group by category all WSPF cases and
appeals from May 29, 1973 to September 1, 1975:
from
the
the
grown
Watergate Cover-up
The following have been charged with offenses stemming from
events following the break-in at Democratic National Committee
Headquarters on June 17, 1972:
Charles W. Colson
Indicted on March 1, 1974, on one count of conspiracy to obstruct
justice (18 USC Section 371) and one count of obstruction of jus-
tice (18 USC Section 1503). Pleaded not guilty March 9, 1974.
Indictment dismissed by government June 3, 1974, after guilty plea
in U.S. v. Ehrlichman et al.
weary:
years
John W. Dean III
Institu-
Pleaded guilty on October 19, 1973, to an information charging
one count of violation of 18 USC Section 371, conspiracy to ob-
names
struct justice. Sentenced August 2, 1974, to a prison term of one to
four years. Began term September 3, 1974. Released January 8,
Ameri-
1975, pursuant to order reducing sentence to time served.
America-
John D. Ehrlichman
had
ever
Indicted on March 1, 1974, on one count of conspiracy to obstruct
sense
justice (18 USC Section 371), one count of obstruction of justice
and
(18 USC Section 1503). one count of making false statements to
responded.
agents of the FBI (18 USC Section 1001) and two counts of
private,
making a false statement to a Grand Jury (18 USC Section 1623).
Pleaded not guilty March 9, 1974. Section 1001 count dismissed by
judge. Found guilty on all other counts January 1, 1975. Sentenced
February 21, 1975 to serve 2½ to 8 years in prison. Conviction
under appeal.
Harry R. Haldeman
Indicted on March 1, 1974, on one count of conspiracy to obstruct
orison,
The
justice (18 USC Section 371), one count of obstruction of justice
Press
1965).
(18 USC Section 1503) and three counts of perjury (18 USC Sec-
155
BERÁLO FORD VIBRARY
To Republican Members of Banking and Currency Committee
Dear
:
As you know, the House Banking and Currency Committee
will meet at 10 o'clock on Tuesday, October 3, to
consider investigations of the Watergate Affair.
This is a matter of utmost importance and I urge you
to be present at the meeting.
Obviously, we desire to see those who have been
involved in illegal activities brought to justice,
but at the same time, we must be careful not to
impinge on the constitutional rights of those who
have been indicted by reckless or irresponsible
investigations motivated by political considerations.
Because of the political overtones of this matter,
I think it would be imperative for all Republican
Members to be present at the Committee meeting
to assure that the investigative resolution is
appropriately drawn.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford
FOND
GERALD
LIBRARY
WASHINGTON POST
October 4, 1972 p. A-1
Excerpts
BUGGING HEARINGS REJECTED
House Panel Defeats Bid by Patman
Rep. Garry Brown (R.Mich.), the key figure in
engineering the defeat, acknowledged in an interview
that he worked with the Justice Department and Rep.
Gerald R. Ford (R.Mich.), the House minority leader,
to block the hearings.
Brown denied a charge by Patman that the White
House brought "all kinds of pressure," but added:
"I would have to presume that the White House wouldn't
want further attention paid to this. I'm not so stupid
to have to be told."
y
A letter circulated to the 15 Republican Committee
-
members by Minority Leader Ford telling them the
importance of the vote.
Two meetings called by the ranking Republican on
the Committee, - William B. Widnall (R.-N.J.), "to discuss
the merits of the hearings," according to Rep. Margaret M.
Heckler (R.-Mass.)
are
helt
FORD i LIBRARY SERVID
WASHINGTON POST
September 7, 1972
p. A-5
Excerpt
'WANDERING FUNDS' OF GOP NOW TOPIC FOR BANKING UNIT
Democratic Committee staff members asserted that the
objection to the Watergate inquiry from Republican
Committee members was at the direction of Richard K. Cook,
deputy assistant to the President for congressional relations.
Cook denied this yesterday and said he met Brown in
the hallway several days ago. "I inquired as to the status
of the investigation, " Cook said. He said he gave "no
advice
That's a Committee affair." "
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
WASHINGTON POST
September 30, 1972
p. A-1
Excerpts
GOP OPPOSITION PERILS HOUSE WATERGATE PROBE
Only last week Patman expressed confidence that the
hearings would be held. Yesterday he said he understood
that a White House effort to stop the inquiry has been
coordinated by Richard K. Cook, deputy assistant to the
President.
*
*
*
*
Cook, a former minority staff member of Patman's committee,
is a White House congressional liaison.
He said yesterday he has been too busy with other
matters to pay attention to the Watergate case and has had no
contact with banking committee staff or members.
A banking committee source said Cook had made inquiries
on the scope and nature of the planned investigation as
recently as last week.
BERRALO FORD LIBRARY
NEW YORK TIMES October 4, 1972
p. A-1
Excerpt
HOUSE PANEL BARS PRE-NOV. 7 INQUIRY INTO BUGGING CASE
Decision Virtually Rules Out Congressional Hearings
Until after the Election
White House Accused
Patman Charges Pressure -- Six Democrats Among Majority
in 20-15 Vote
'Facts Will Come Out'
"I predict that the facts will come out, " Mr. Patman
said, "and when they do, I am convinced they will reveal
why the White House was so anxious to kill the committee's
investigation. The public will fully understand why this
pressure was mounted."
But Representative William B. Widnall of New Jersey,
the committee's ranking Republican member, denied Mr. Patman's
allegations of pressure from the Nixon Administration.
Mr. Widnall said he had had "no contact with the White House
at all in connection with this investigation."
GERALD LISBRA FORD
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
Containment II 139
they're going to get it, right?" Haldeman nodded his approval, and
the President glanced at me.
"That's an exciting prospect," I remarked flatly, mustering my hos-
tility toward those who threatened the cover-up. I was trying to sound
like a vicious prize fighter and doing a poor job, but I seemed to be
pleasing the President. I was taking each apple he handed me, polish-
Containment
141
obtain the next batch of cash. On this note, he and Herb walked out
of my office like pallbearers. Now Kalmbach was out; LaRue was in.
Such encounters deflated my confidence, but Haldeman usually
pumped me back up. A few days after the Kalmbach ceremony, he
saw me in the hall and invited me into his office for a chat. Bob had
become very friendly and increasingly open. He had to make a few
quick calls, so I wandered around his office examining his mementos.
142
II BLIND AMBITION
hearings. It's going to come to a head pretty soon. Patman's got to
get his committee to vote him subpoena power, and it's a close ques-
tion whether we have the votes to kill it. I've been talking to Bill
Timmons* and Stans and Petersen on this thing, and Mitchell is work-
ing on it, too. We think we can give our guys a leg to stand on by
telling them that an investigation
Containment
143
"Any time, my boy."
Over the next several weeks, there was a good deal of activity to
block the Patman investigation. I asked Ken Parkinson to check into
the reported contributions of Patman and the other members of his
committee. I was in touch with Mitchell, who told me he was working
with "some Rockefeller people" to bring pressure on the New York
members of the committee. I continued to urge Henry Petersen to
write an official Justice Department letter objecting to the hearings on
the grounds that the attendant publicity would endanger the rights of
T al in finally and all the Republican mem-
144
II
BLIND AMBITION
"I'm pretty sure he is. Put him down. He'll either take a walk or
vote with us."
"Okay, John. Let me know if you have any more names for my
tally sheet. I'll stay on it. I think we're over the top."
More arm-twisting and back-room politics and Timmons reported
we sure cofe On October 2 the and C
DOMESTIC SERVICE
INTERNATIONAL SERVIC
Check the class ofservicedesired;
S $ WESTERN UNION
Check the class of service desire
otherwise this message will be
otherwise the message will be
sentasa fast telegram
sent at the full rate
TELEGRAM
FULL RATE
DAY LETTER
E
W.P. MARSHALL
TELEGRAM
R. W. McFALL
LETTER TELEGRAM
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
PRESIDENT
NIGHT LETTER
®
X
SHORE SHIP
NO. WDS.-CL. OF SVC.
PD. OR COLL.
CASH NO.
CHARGE TO THE ACCOUNT OF
TIME FILED
GERALD R. FORD, M.C. - MINORITY LEADER
end the following message, subject to the terms on back hereof, which are hereby agreed to
H-230, U.S. CAPITOL
WASHINGTON, D. C.
OCTOBER 31, 1972
THE SPEAKER
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H-206 U.S. CAPITOL
WASHINGTON, D. C.
REQUEST YOUR IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION OF RELEASE OF SO-CALLED HOUSE BANKING AND
CURRENCY REPORT ATTRIBUTED TO MAJORITY STAFF. REPORT BASED ON UNNAMED SOURCES,
HEARSAY AND INNUENDO REPRESENTS WORST FORM OF LAST-MINUTE SMEAR TACTICS. RELEASE
BY STAFF WITH CONGRESS IN ADJOURNMENT INDICATES DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF HOUSE
RULES AND PROCEDURES. REQUEST YOU IMMEDIATELY ORDER SUSPENSION OF EMPLOYEES
INVOLVED PENDING FULL INVESTIGATION OF VIOLATIONS BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
STANDARDS OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT AND THE FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES COMMITTEE.
GERALD R. FORD, M.C.
MINORITY LEADER
206(R2-65)
FORD w 038870 LIBRARY
Onne
open meeting
reporters
present
has handwigt
R. FORD
Nomination of Gerald R. Ford to be the Vice President of the U.S.
Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, November 1973
156
Mr. EDWARDS. In hindsight, do you think your decision was correct?
Mr. Ford. Well, it is somewhat bolstered by legal scholars. There has
been no definitive decision. I think I could produce as many scholars
who believe as I do as others might produce for their viewpoint. So I
think it is an unresolved matter where there is an honest difference of
opinion.
Mr. EDWARDS. Had you discussed the matter previously with the
Vice President before he came to the Speaker's?
Mr. FORD. I had on two occasions. as I recollect, at his request, not
to just discuss his possibly submitting his letter to the Speaker, but to
let him give me and one other Member of the House an opportunity
to hear his side of the story, which he told both of us on some two
occasions. At the time, in both of those instances, he inferred in the
first and talked more affirmatively in the second that he might come
up and see the Speaker with this letter requesting action. I did not know
the day that he did it until I understood he was in the Speaker's office,
however.
Mr. EDWARDS. Did he discuss with you the rather large extent of his
criminal involvement before. in these previous discussions, in these
discussions before you met in the Speaker's office?
Mr. FORD. He discussed with me and one of my colleagues the allega-
tions that were alleged, not the full extent of them, and his willingness
to take an oath that they were untrue.
Mr. EDWARDS. Did he discuss his plan to submit the matter to the
House of Representatives with the President?
Mr. FORD. With the President?
Mr. EDWARDS. With the President.
Mr. FORD. I am not familiar one way or another with that.
Mr. EDWARDS. He did not tell you at these previous meetings whether
or not he had discussed the matter with the President?
Mr. FORD. He did not.
Chairman RODINO. Your time has expired.
Ms. Holtzman?
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ford, it is very late in the day and you have been patient after
a long day, 2 days really of grilling, and I have a few questions to
ask of you at this point.
The first regards a report in October 1972 by the staff of the House
Banking and Currency Committee which uncovered a number of
serious allegations regarding the reelection campaign of President
Nixon, including information that large amounts of campaign con-
tributions had been traced to one or more of the Watergate suspects.
about a secret Republican fund of at least $350,000 available that was
being used for intelligence-gathering purposes, that a Mexican bank
had been used to launder large amounts of campaign funds, that
a Federal bank charter had been granted to a large Nixon campaign
donor in unusual haste, and that top officials in the Presidential cam-
paign had ordered the bugging of Democrats' National Headquarters
as well as the surveillance of bank accounts of Democratic Congress-
men and officials.
According to your testimony in the Senate, I understand that you
as a Republican leader played a role in the stopping of the investiga-
&
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Nomination of Gerald R. Ford of Michigan to be Vice President
of the United States -- Report of the Committee on Rules and
Administration - November 23, 1973/
90
DELAY IN CALLING UP HOUSE CONFERENCE REPORT ON 1972
FEDERAL ELECTION DISCLOSURE LAW
The CHAIRMAN. The effective date of the 1972 Federal election disclosure law
was delayed some 5 weeks in the House, from December 14, 1971, to January
1972, because of the failure to call up a conference report for final House action.
An enormous fundraising drive was conducted by Maurice Stans during the
5-week period prior to the effective date of the law. He raised, reportedly, more
than $11 million for President Nixon during this period. The Stans drive was
based on the premise that contributions should be made at that time by all
donors who wanted to keep their contributions secret from public scrutiny. Were
you ever approached by anyone from the White House, the Nixon Campaign
Committee, or the executive branch concerning the issue of delaying final passage
of this legislation by the House?
Mr. FORD. To my best recollection, Mr. Chairman, nobody contacted me from
any of those areas that you mentioned.
The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever discuss the issue of delaying that legislation
with any Members of Congress or with anyone else?
Mr. FORD. Well, naturally, in the job that I had, I had to know what was
coming up, what was to be programed at any one time on the floor of the House.
I do not now, nor did I then control the programing of legislation. That is
the responsibility of the majority party. I may have asked if it was coming
up. I may have made some comment, but in any case I was not the person who
would make the final decision.
BLOCKING INVESTIGATION BY HOUSE BANKING AND CURRENCY
COMMITTEE OF WATERGATE BREAK-IN
Mr. Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Com-
mittee tried to go into the captioned matter prior to the election last
November. The Republican members of the Committee opposed such
action. Thus it is appropriate to know what part Mr. Ford played in
blocking the investigation at that time.
The record shows his answers to questions propounded.
Senator BYRD. Representative Ford, will you relate to the Committee your
role, if any, in the blocking of an investigation by House Banking and Currency
Committee into the Watergate break-in as proposed by Chairman Wright Patman
in October of 1968?
Mr. FORD. Senator Byrd. I do not have the full details here, but I can outline,
give you the salient points.
Chairman Patman had proposed sometime in October of 1972 that his Com-
mittee, the Committee on Banking and Currency in the House, undertake an
investigation of certain American banks in trading or handling accounts between
an American bank and a foreign bank. And that the Senator-Chairman Patman
wanted subpoena authority to carry out this investigation.
A number of members of that Committee on the Republican side and several
on the Democratic side were opposed to giving that authority to Mr. Patman.
A number of our Republicans on that Committee came to me and said, "Jerry,
we think you ought to call a meeting so that we on our side of the aisles could
bring the leadership up to date, and perhaps the leadership would give some
counsel to the Republican members of the Committee on Banking and Currency."
So my position, as the Republican leader of the House, at his request, called
a meeting. We met with the Republican members of that Committee on one or
two occasions. They brought us up to date
We talked about what the policy ought to be in the Committee, but there was
no Republican party decision made.
The action taken by the Republicans plus. I think, five Democrats was, I think,
to deny Chairman Patman that power of subpoena.
Senator BYBD. You may be aware John Dean testified to the Senate Watergate
Committee on June 25 of this year, that House Republican leaders "acted at the
request of the White House to block that investigation"
Were you in contact with anyone at the White House during the period of
August through October 1972 concerning the Patman Committee's possible in-
vestigation of the Watergate break-in?
i
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Nomination of Gerald R. Ford of Michigan
to be Vice President of the United States
Hearings before the Committee on
Rules and Administration, U. S. Senate, November 1973.
128
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Pell?
Senator PELL. In the interest of time, I will limit myself to one
question. I would like to return for a moment to this question of in-
flation and the burdens imposed. particularly. on our older people. The
bill that passed the Senate and is in the House now calls for, I think.
a 7-percent increase. Before it passed the House, would you urge the
President to sign this bill or do you feel that—
Mr. Form. I believe that if you are going to increase the benefits.
you have to, in all honestr. find additional revenue. Now, I have not
had a chance to study whether this added benefit payment that is pro-
vided in the Senate version requires additional revenue, whether we
have to increase the ceiling so that you are taxing more of the income.
or whether we have to increase the rates. But if we have not provided
in such legislation additional revenues to keep the balance in the
social security trust funds-if we have not provided that revenue-
I would urge that it be vetoed.
I hope that we can provide enough revenue because, in my oninion.
certainly the people in the older age brackets. because of inflation.
need the help. And I want to help them. But I do not want to destrov
the social security concept by not providing sufficient revenues to
finance these additional benefits.
Senator PELL. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bvrd?
Senator BYED. Representative Ford. will you relate to the commit-
tee your role. if any. in the blocking of an investigation by the House
Banking and Currency Committee into the Watergate breakin as pro-
posed by Chairman Wright Patman in October of 1972?
Mr. FORD. Senator Byrd. I do not have the full details here, but I
can give you the salient points.
Chairman Patman had proposed sometime in October of 1972 that
his committee. the Committee on Banking and Currency in the House.
undertake an investigation of certain American banks in trading or
handling accounts between an American bank and a foreign bank.
And investigation. Chairman Patman wanted subpena authority to carry out this
A number of members of that committee on the Republican side and
several on the Democratic side were opposed to giving that authority
to Mr. Patman. A number of our Republicans on that committee came
to me and said. "Jerry. we think you ought to call a meeting SO that
me on our side of the aisle could bring the leadership nn to date. and
perhaps the leadership would give some counsel to the Republican
members of the Committee on Banking and Currency."
So as the Republican leader of the House. upon this request. I called
a meeting. iTe met with the Republican members of that cotamittes
on one or two occasions. They brought us up to date. TTe talked
about what the policy onght to be in the committee. but there THE
no Republican Party decision made. The action taken bv the Repule
licans nins. T think. five Democrats was, I think, to deny Chairman
Patman that nower of subpena.
Senator BYRD. You may be aware that John Dean testified to the
Senate Watergate Committee on June 25 of this year that House Re
publican leaders "acted at the request of the White House to block that
i
FORD
investigation.' Were you in contact with anyone at the White House
GERALD
129
luring the period of August through October 1972 concerning the
Patman committee's possible investigation of the Watergate breakin ?
Mr. FORD. Not to my best recollection. The best and, I think most
authoritative answer to this question is one that Representative Jerry
Brown of the Third District of Michigan submitted to the Ervin
committee.
Congressman Brown was very much involved as a member of the
Committee on Banking and Currency, and his name was much more
closely identified with this problem than was mine.
As a result, he prepared the very detailed statements which I under-
stood were put in the record of the Ervin committee. He was never
called to testify. But I would be glad to submit that statement by
Congressman Brown because it goes into this whole question in very
great depth.
I think it might be helpful to the part of this record if the chairman
of the committee would so permit.
The CHAIRMAN. You may supply them for the record.
Mr. FORD. I will, sir.
[The statement referred to follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. GARRY E. BROWN, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN, SUBMITTED TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL CAM-
PAIGN ACTIVITIES
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, at the outset, let me express my
deep appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee for providing me with
this opportunity to respond in kind to the allegations made by Mr. Dean in his
statement and earlier presentation to this Committee. To say that I was some-
what dumbfounded to learn of the allegations made by Mr. Dean is a gross under-
statement since my participation in the bipartisan effort by members of the House
Banking and Currency Committee, which resulted in the denial of the granting of
subpoena authority to the Chairman of our Committee, was in no way connected
with the so-called "cover-up" activities in which Mr. Dean has testified he
participated.
Perhaps it would be best for me to provide the Committee with a chronological
statement of what occurred in this regard on the House side, as best I can recall
it, and then provide the Committee with a particularized response to Mr. Dean's
several allegations.
Assuming the concurrence of the Committee in this proposed format of my testi-
mony. let me proceed with the chronological statement of activities on the House
side, the period of time over which these activities occurred having been late
August of 1972 to October 3, 1972, the latter date being the date of the meeting of
the House Banking and Currency Committee at which. by a vote of 15 to 20,
Chairman Patman's request for subpoena authority was denied.
While back in Michigan fulfilling commitments during the August Recess of
the Congress, on either the late afternoon of August 30 or the morning of Au-
gust 31, 1972, I heard on my car radio that the Banking and Currency Committee
was interviewing Mr. Maurice Stans, the Chairman of the Finance Committee
to Re-Elect the President, with respect to the handling of campaign contributions
since there appeared to be a connection between the handling of some of such
funds and the Watergate burglary.
Inasmuch as I had not been notified by my office in Washington, nor had I
received any notice in Michigan, that the Committee was meeting for this pur-
pose. I immediately got in touch with my Washington office and determined that
Chairman Patman had not called a meeting, nor had he notified my office of the
interviews with Stans. I then contacted the Banking and Currency Committee
staff to determine the facts with respect to the news broadcast I had heard
and determined that no Committee meeting had been called, but rather that
certain members of the Banking and Currency Committee staff, at the direction
of the Chairman, had individually interviewed Stans. I was unable Fascertain
at that time from the staff the justification therefor or the reasons why Commit-
tee members had not been advised of Chairman Patman's initiation of such
investigation by staff members.
LIBRARY
130
In view of the media attention provoked, it appeared to me Patman's action
was prompted by political considerations, SO I again called my Washington office
and asked my legislative assistant to carefully examine the Rules of the House
and the Rules of the Banking and Currency Committee to determine by what
authority Patman had initiated such investigation without first seeking the
authority of the Committee and by what authority he could do so without even
notifying Committee members. As a result of such research by my legislative aide.
on Thursday, August 31, 1972 I dictated a letter to Chairman Patman citing the
Rules of the House and the Committee and indicating my displeasure over the
fact that he had initiated such investigation without seeking the concurrence of
the Committee or even notifying Committee members. This letter is attached as
Exhibit No. 1.
At this juncture, I should point out that to the best of my recollection, there
had been no Committee discussion of our Committee's jurisdiction over, or involve-
ment in, an investigation of the Re-Elect Committee's handling of contributions
or their possible involvement in the financing of the Watergate burglary. In
short, the Committee staff investigation hit me as a complete surprise.
It being necessary for me to attend the fall Republican State Convention in
Detroit September 1 and 2. I did not return to Washington until late Monday.
Labor Day, September 4.
Inasmuch as the only information I had been able to develop regarding the
content of the interviews by Patman's staff members of Stans was from a Repub-
lican staff member who had been present during only a portion of such interviews.
I contacted Mr. Stans to attempt to determine the particulars about the staff
inquiry, whether or not a transcript had been made of such interviews or any
other record of the discussions in order that I might be apprised of the substance
of such interviews to the same extent as were the staff members and Mr. Patman.
In the course of my discussion of the matter telephonically with Mr. Stans. I
requested an opportunity to discuss the matter personally with him and arranged
to see him on the morning of September 6.
In view of Mr. Dean's statements on pages 103 and 104 to the effect that he and
others associated with the White House were aware of and concerned about the
Banking and Currency staff investigation as early as mid-August. I should point
out that my first contact of any kind with anyone from the White House or the
Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President was this call to Mr. Stans on Sep-
tember 5, 1972.1
Also, in view of Mr. Dean's association of the Banking and Currency Committee
with what he alleges were cover-up discussions going on at this time, it is essen-
tial to keep in mind the limited scope of the Patman investigation. In his letter to
me, received September 5, responding to my letter of August 31, 1972, Chairman
Patman said that his interest in an investigation was prompted by a letter he had
received from a Committee member who urged either Patman or the International
Finance Subcommittee Chairman to look into possible violations of the Foreign
Bank Secrecy Act by the Committee to Re-Elect the President in connection with
the transfer of some of its funds through Mexico. In addition, and subsequently.
Patman brought into the scope of his interest the circumstances surrounding a
$25,000 contribution to the Committee to Re-Elect the President by one who was
interested in a national bank charter application which was pending. In short. by
Patman's own statements, he was justifying jurisdiction of the Banking and Cur-
rency Committee over the investigation by limiting its scope to the use of banks
in the financial transactions of the Committee to Re-Elect the President, the bank
charter matter, and to the Watergate burglary by virtue of the surfacing of funds
in the bank account of Mr. Barker, one of those who had been arrested for par-
ticipation in such burglary.
Not satisfied with Patman's response of September 5, 1972, I immediately
drafted a letter to him, which letter was co-signed by several of my Republican
colleagues on the Committee, in which we demanded that Patman call a meeting
of the Committee to discuss the whole matter. Our letter of September 5, 1972 is
attached as Exhibit No. 2.
In view of Patman's rationale for conducting the investigation, in my inter-
view with Mr. Stans on September 6, I attempted to ascertain the true facts from
him concerning the handling of campaign contributions. the alleged Mexican
1 At no time, before. during. and since the period covered by this chronology. have I dis-
cussed the Committee's action or the Watergate matter with the President. Mr. Haldeman.
Mr. Erlichman, Mr. Dean Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Colson, or any similar person within the inner-
group mentioned by Mr. Dean.
131
hundering" of such funds. and their apparent ultimate deposit in Barker's bank
recount. Mr. Stans informed me he did not know how or why the funds went to
Mexico and ended up in Barker's account, stating that Mr. Gordon Liddy, the gen-
ral counsel for the Committee, had been the one who made the decisions regard-
how contributions were reported, handled, etc. under the new campaign ex-
nditure law. Since my inquiry involved the legality of the handling of such
(unds, it was agreed I should talk with Mr. Kenneth Parkinson, who was the
sew legal counsel for the Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President, having
succeeded Mr. Liddy, whose services had been terminated.
I met with Mr. Stans personally only this one time, but I may have talked
with him three or four times on the phone. During the course of these conversa-
tions, I am quite sure I suggested that it might be better for Mr. Stans to testify,
than to give Patman the opportunity to publicize and take political advantage of
Stans' non-appearance, it being the position of most Republican Committee mem-
ters that Patman's interest in an investigation was more political than anything
else.
I discussed the application of the Bank Secrecy Act. the campaign expenditure
law, and other aspects of the matter telephonically with Mr. Parkinson several
times and met with him on one occasion of which I am certain and possibly a sec-
and time very briefly. although I cannot specifically recall a second occasion.
During this time, I had asked my legislative assistant, who is an attorney
and a former law clerk for a Federal Court of Appeals Judge, to brief for me
the question of the propriety of the appearance of Mr. Stans and others before
our Committee. In the course of this research done by both my legislative assist-
ant and myself, it became apparent that such an appearance could prejudice the
rights of those who might be indicted as a result of the grand jury proceedings
that were then in progress. Appreciation of this problem prompted me to write
to both the Attorney General and Mr. Stans requesting the opinion of the Attor-
ner General with respect to the propriety of Mr. Stans' appearance as well as the
opinion of Mr. Stans' attorney concerning his own position on the appropriateness
of such appearance. These letters are attached as Exhibits No. 3 and 4, respec-
tively. At the time of the writing of these letters. Mr. Stans had not, to my
knowledge, decided whether or not he would voluntarily appear before the
Committee.
It is this letter of September 8 to the Attorney General which Mr. Dean has
said
in
his
statement,
was, in fact, drafted by Parkinson for Congressman
Brown." I unequivocally deny this charge. The letter to the Attorney General
was dictated by me to my secretary and is my work product in every respect. It is
my best recollection that from the conversations I had with Mr. Stans and Mr.
Parkinson up to this point it appeared to me no decision had been made as to
whether or not Mr. Stans would appear. The decision to write such letters was
wholly my own and stemmed from my concern about the propriety of his ap-
pearance regardless of what his decision might be. such concern having been
prompted by the limited research done by my legislative aide and myself to this
time.
It would be asinine for me to say that in the course of my discussions of the
matter with Stans and Parkinson I did not mention the concern I felt about the
legal ramifications of Mr. Stans' appearance before the Committee and of my be-
lief that the legal opinions of those most closely involved, namely, the Attorney
General and Stans, should be obtained. In any such discussions, however, it was
always a matter of my apprising Stans and Parkinson of what I proposed to do,
rather than receipt by me of suggestions. requests, urgings, etc. from them.
Although I received no written response from the Attorney General to my let-
ter of September 8, on September 12 Ralph Erickson. the Deputy Attorney General,
telephoned my office and talked with a member of my staff and advised that he
was calling in response to my letter of September S and indicated that the Attor-
ney General would be happy to talk with me about the matter but not intend
to respond in writing. suggesting that the questions I had asked were now moot
because in the interim Mr. Stans had notified the Committee that he was de
clining the invitation to testify.
During this period of time, the Banking and Currency Committee. although
considering other legislation, had been embroiled in the controversy about the
conduct of hearings by the Committee into the Patman charges, the scope of
which I have already described. But none of the activities regarding political
espionage, bugging, cover-up, etc. which have now surfaced and which are now
being discussed were known at the time the Banking and Currency Committee
was contemplating its hearings and it must also he kept in mind that Patman's
132
effort to investigate the matter of the laundered funds and Barker's involvement
was analyzed by most of us at that time as being blatantly political in view of the
up-coming election.
Chairman Patman finally did discuss the matter with the Committee and.
although objection was voiced by many of us, he scheduled a meeting of the Com-
mittee for September 14 to receive the testimony of Stans and Phillip S. Hughes.
Director of the Office of Federal Elections, General Accounting Office. This was
the meeting at which Stans declined to appear.
Because Stans had failed to appear voluntarily, Chairman Patman notified
the Committee on September 25, 1972 that he intended to seek the authority of
the Committee to issue subpoenas for Stans and several others at a meeting of the
Committee to be held October 3. When it became certain that the Chairman
would seek subpoena authority, my earlier concern about the propriety of such
appearance was renewed and intensified since in the meantime the legal research
done by me and my office had clearly established the danger of conducting a
Congressional hearing when criminal proceedings were pending regarding the
same matter.
As a result, I again wrote to the Attorney General on September 26, 1972
pointing out to him that although the questions I had raised in my September S
letter might have become moot after Stans had declined to voluntarily testify.
Patman's plans to seek subpoena authority made my questions and concerns very
real once again. This letter of September 26 is attached as Exhibit No. 5.
Despite my insistence in my letter to the Attorney General of September 26.
1972 for an opinion to be expressed. it wasn't until the late afternoon of October:
that I learned Mr. Henry Petersen, Assistant Attorney General, had replied to
my letter of September 26, not to me, but to Patman. In fact, Patman had received
the response from Petersen before I knew that a response had been provided.
since I was not given a copy until I requested the same. This letter from Petersen
is attached as Exhibit No. 6 and is the same as Dean's Exhibit No. 21.
In this regard. I felt at the time that the Department of Justice and the Attor-
ney General's Office was being most uncooperative and, in fact, was taking a
rather untenable position of not wanting to get involved when my research bad
clearly satisfied me that the success of their prosecutive efforts of those who had
been indicted by the grand jury could be seriously jeopardized by public hear-
ings of the Banking and Currency Committee under the law applicable thereto.
especially the holding in the Delaney case. It having been my position then.
and it continues to be my position. as well as that of Archibald Cox. the Special
Prosecutor, that public hearings in prejudicing the rights of those who have
been accused, necessarily also seriously jeopardize the successful prosecution of
these individuals.
In any case, the Committee met on October 3 and, as is well known, voted 20-15
against authorizing the Chairman to issue the subpoenas he has requested.
Although it is of little pertinence to this chronology. I wish to add that con-
sistent with my many-times stated position regarding the Banking and Currency
Committee's investigation of this matter, to wit, that such investigation should
await completion of criminal proceedings, I wrote to Chairman Patman in early
January of this year urging him to designate a staff member or hire outside coun-
sel to monitor the criminal trials of the "Watergate Seven" SO that we might be
kept current on the proceedings of those trials SO we would be prepared to con-
duct a Committee investigation upon completion of the criminal proceedings
Needless to say. the Chairman declined to grant my request and in a reply ex-
pressing manv reasons, closed the door upon any investigation by our Committee.
From the foregoing. it is obvious that Mr. Dean, in his testimony before the
Senate Select Committee. either has stated things to be true which he does not
know to be true or has engaged in absolute falsehoods. More particularly, I recite
the following: (References are to the statement presented to your Committee of
June 25, 1973.)
On nage 104. Mr. Dean states: "At some point in time during these investiga-
tions Mr. Parkinson was put in touch with Congressman Gary (sic) Brown who
was a member of the Banking and Currency Committee."
2 In view of Mr. Dean's testimony about the proposed Patman witness list. I should all
at this noint that I attempted to determine who Patman wanted to subpoena. but it wasn't
until T received such list. hand delivered at 5 :05 P.M. on 10/2/72, the evening before the
10/3/72 meeting. that I or anyone else, to my knowledge, knew who Patman intended to
subpoena and call as witnesses.
133
The fact is, Mr. Parkinson was not put in touch with me. I requested an oppor-
tunity to talk to Mr. Parkinson during my original contact wtih Mr. Stans when
lie could not explain to me the several legal aspects of the handling of funds by
Mr. Liddy, the legal interpretation given to the campaign expenditure law as
it applied to contributions made to the Committee to Re-Elect the President before
and after April 7, 1972, and other aspects of the staff interrogation of Mr. Stans.
Also on page 104, Mr. Dean states:
"To the best of my recollection this may have resulted from discussions between
members of the White House Congressional Relations staff with the Republican
members of the Banking and Currency Committee to determine who would be
most helpful on the Committee and Brown indicated his willingness to assist."
Emphasis added.)
The fact is, I recall no conversation with anyone which could be interpreted as
my indicating a "willingness to assist." This is especially true if one interprets, as
he must, Mr. Dean's word "assist" as being willingness to assist in the White
House efforts to block the Patman Committee hearings for the second reason he
states on page 103; that being, and I quote
"and second, they just might
stumble into something that would start unraveling the cover-up."
It should be pointed out that as of even September 8, 1972, or for that matter
as late as October 3, 1972, to my recollection, there had been no public suggestion
that a "cover-up" was in progress. The fact that I opposed such hearings at that
time because I was satisfied the law made inappropriate and undesirable the
conduct of hearings of our Committee while the criminal proceedings were pend-
ing and, in addition. thought Patman's desire for such hearings was purely
political, while for other reasons the White House may have opposed such hear-
ings. may make our goal similar, namely, the blocking of the hearings, but it is
totally improper to attribute the same motivation, as Mr. Dean has done.
Again on page 104. Mr. Dean states
"On September 8th Congressman Brown sent a letter to the Attorney General
regarding the forthcoming appearance of Secretary Stans and others before the
Patman Committee. I have submitted to the Committee a copy of this letter
Exhibit No. 18), which was, in fact, drafted by Parkinson for Congressman
Brown." (Emphasis added.)
The fact is, this letter was not drafted by Parkinson for me, nor to the best
of my recollection does my letter to the Attorney General contain any input
from Parkinson, although of course, as I have already indicated I had apprised
Stans and Parkinson of my plans to solicit the opinion of the Attorney General.
On this same page 104, Dean again refers to "Parkinson's drafting the letter for
Congressman Brown," which is a repetition of the previous erroneous statement.
I wish to advise the Committee with respect to this statement that upon
learning of this charge made by Mr. Dean. I knew it to be SO completely erroneous
that I sought an explanation for the making of same by Mr. Dean. I attempted to
contact Mr. Parkinson to determine whether or not he, or anyone else to his
knowledge, might have suggested or stated to Mr. Dean that he, Parkinson, had
drafted such letter. Mr. Parkinson was not immediately available and I was
unable to talk with him until the late afternoon of Tuesday. June 26, 1973. Dean's
statement having been made, as you will recall, in his testimony before this
Committee on June 25. 1973. In this telephone conversation with Mr. Parkinson
on June 26, Mr. Parkinson unequivocally denied that he had drafted such letter
or that he, or anyone else to his knowledge, had advised Mr. Dean that such
letter had been drafted by him, Parkinson.
However, in the course of my attempting to learn from Parkinson how Dean
could possibly have made this statement, Parkinson recalled that he had prepared
a draft of a letter at the request of Mr. Dean which he. Parkinson, understood
was to be furnished to the Attorney General as a proposed response by the
Attorney General to my letter of September 8, 1972 (Dean's Exhibit No. 18. my
Exhibit No. 3). I requested a copy of this proposed draft which was prepared by
Mr. Parkinson for Mr. Dean and it is attached hereto as Exhibit No. 7. It is Mr.
Parkinson's further recollection that subsequent to his preparation of this draft,
Mr. Dean took the same for what Mr. Parkinson understood to be further
review or revision by Mr. Dean. Of course. this proposed draft was apparently
never used as intended since no response was made at that time to my letter of
September 8, 1972.
3 Although Dean cites no time frame for this statement, It shoud be emembered inde-
pendently and aggressively had commenced opposing the Patman action as early as 8/31/72
and had no knowledge of what Dean says were on-going conversations within his group on
the subject.
134
Although it is relatively insignificant, on page 105 of his testimony, Dean states
that no response was sent by the Justice Department to my letter of September 8
prior to the scheduled appearance of Mr. Stans on September 14; whereas, al-
though Dean's discussion of this matter on page 105 may be substantially accurate,
I did receive a telephonic response to my letter of September 8 from Deputy
Attorney General Erickson in which, as I have above pointed out, he indicated
no written response would be provided and that he felt the questions I had
raised in my letter of September 8 were moot because of Stan's decision not to
appear before the Committee voluntarily.
On page 108, Mr. Dean states:
"I began receiving increasing pressure from Mitchell, Stans. Parkinson and
others to get the Justice Department to respond to the September 8th letter of
Congressman Brown as a vehicle that Congressman Brown could use in persuad-
ing others not to vote in favor of the subpoenas. Congressman Brown felt that
with this document in hand he would give the Republicans and others something to
hang their vote on." (emphasis added)
The fact is, I know of no basis for these statements since my only purpose in
writing to the Attorney General on both occasions, that is, September 8 and
September 26, was to attempt to get the Attorney General to recognize the law
for what I knew it to be and to appreciate the prosecutorial problems which
would be created by public hearings of the Committee. I especially know of no
basis in fact for the underlined portion of the foregoing quote from Dean's
statement, since I cannot recall having expressed the same to anyone. However.
there can be little question but what such a letter would have a favorable impact
upon other members.
At the bottom of page 108 and on page 109 of Dean's statement he states that
much effort was put forth by many people, including Mr. Timmons, to persuade
members of the Committee to vote against the hearings. I can only speak for this
member of the Committee in this regard, but I do not recall receiving any urging
from anyone at the White House to cast my vote against such hearings.
In fact, I am very certain I had no significant contact from anyone associated
with the Administration or the White House regarding the hearings other than
the contacts I have already discussed with Mr. Stans and Mr. Parkinson.
To the best of my recollection, my only contacts with White House personnel
were insignificant contacts I had in the course of normal legislative business
with Dick Cook, the White House liaison agent for the House of Representatives.
who, rather than suggesting or urging me to take any course of action, merely
inquired of me as to how things were going and whether or not I thought those
of us who opposed the hearings would be successful in our opposition. In my dis-
cussions with other members of the Committee at that time and since, I have yet
to find one who indicated that he or she was pressured in any way to vote as he
or she did.
In conclusion, I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the
Committee for your patience in permitting me to provide this probably unneces-
sarily lengthy statement. My purpose in doing SO was to establish for the record
not only the absence of culpability on my part, but the absence of culpability on
the part of the other members of the House Committee on Banking and Cur-
rency in opposing the Patman investigation, to the extent that I have any knowl-
edge of other members' actions.
I hope I have satisfied the Committee and the listening, viewing, and reading
audience that what Mr. Dean has concluded was causally related action by the
majority of our Committee to what he was doing at the White House, has no
basis in fact and should not be SO presumed. If opposition to action proposed by
one's colleagues. when that opposition is based on principle and proper political
motivation, cannot be voiced without such opposition being interpreted as culpa-
ble conduct and obstruction of justice, then we certainly have reached a sorry
state of affairs in our political and legislative system.
If I have done nothing else. I trust that I have at least somewhat dispelled
the "guilt by association" implicit in Mr. Dean's testimony by his linking of the
House Banking and Currency Committee action with the whole gamut of culpa-
ble conduct about which he has testified.
I will be glad to answer any questions the members
GERALD
of
the
Committee
might
care to pose.
Thank you.
Senator BYRD. Mr. Ford. you undoubtedly would recall any conver-
sation you might have had during that period of August-October with
the President, with Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Dean, or any-
135
one at the White House, in connection with the proposed investigation
by the Patman committee. Do you recall any such conversations that
would indicate that the White House wanted you to lend your efforts,
as a leader, to blocking such an investigation?
Mr. FORD. I can say categorically, Senator Byrd, I never talked with
the President about it, or with Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, and
Mr. Dean. I know emphatically I had no conversation with them now.
Almost daily, during my period as Republican leader in the House,
I talked with Mr. Timmons, or someone in the Legislative Liaison Of-
fice of the White House, but even in this case I do not recall any con-
versations concerning this particular matter.
Senator BYRD. Was there any discussion between you and Mr. Tim-
mons or between you and the other members of the Patman committee
or any of your colleagues in the House to the effect that the investiga-
tion would possibly be harmful to the President, harmful to his reelec-
tion chances in the then upcoming Presidential election, or to the
Republican Party generally
Mr. FORD. As I recall the two meetings that I attended, both of
which I called, the real issue that was discussed-and Jerry Brown's
memo or prepared statement probably expresses it better than I can-
was that Mr. Patman, the chairman of the Committee on Banking and
Currency in the House, was going about the matter in the wrong way.
And as I recall, statements were made he was going on a fishing
expedition.
Now, the members on our side of the aisles in that committee were
concerned about the procedure and the dangers that that procedure
might lead to a precedent. I think, in all honesty, that was the basic
thrust of the action of the Republicans. And I think every Republican
on the committee voted to deny that responsibility or that power to the
chairman. And I think they were joined in that vote by five Democrats,
as I recall. So a majority of the committee turned down the authority.
Senator BYRD. But as I understand you, any efforts that you may
have contributed toward the stifling or impeding or blocking of such
investigation by the Patman committee were not born of your feeling,
or at least your feelings as expressed to anyone, that such an investiga-
tion would be harmful to the President, harmful to his chances of
reelection, or harmful to your party?
Mr. FORD. The answer is no, Senator Byrd.
Senator BYRD. Now, Mr. Ford, as you know, the Attorney General
of the United States wears two hats. He is the chief law enforcement
officer of the United States and, at the same time, he is the chief po-
litical adviser to the administration, regardless of whatever adminis-
tration may be in power, whether it be a Democratic administration or
Republican administration. Do you believe that the Attorney General
should participate in partisan political activity such as the congres-
sional elections of 1974, or do you think he should stay in a bipartisan
stance such as that traditionally taken, let us say, by the Secretary of
State?
Mr. FORD. Certainly the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense should refrain from partisan political activity. The Attorney
General does not have quite the same responsibilities as the two previ-
ously mentioned, but I do believe that he should certainly be circum-
spect, because as the principal law enforcing officer of the Government
First Family
19
FORD/DOLE CAMPAIGN
On the subject of Mrs. Ford's health, Jack said the White
House is probably the best place to be to get medical treatment
for her back and arthritis problems.
He said his mother has been an inspiration for the whole
family because of her campaigning abilities.
On the campaign, Michael, who was also on the show, said at
one point during the campaign, his father and Jimmy Carter engaged
in criticism of each other which "wasn't fair to the American people.
He said he thought the two men should keep the campaign on
thehigh road and said he expressed that viewpoint to his father.
As a family member, Jack said he has tremendous reservations
about his father becoming President for the next four years
because of the strain.
But, Michael and Jack agreed that because of their father's
accomplishments in the past two years, they think he is the
best choice.
--Good Morning, America (10/28/76)
Watergate
FORD/DOLE
Jaworski Ridicules Dash
Former Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski rejects as "silly"
Watergate committee lawyer Sam Dash's charge that a stronger
prosecutor might have blocked the pardon of Richard Nixon.
Dash suggested in a Women's Wear Daily interview Wednesday
that President Ford "wouldn't have dared pardon Nixon" if he thought
Jaworski would resist in court or by going to the people.
Jaworski, a Houston lawyer, ridiculed the suggestion.
"I got a call from President Ford at 9:30 am. He pardoned
Nixon at 11 a.m. How could I have gone to the people? That
shows how silly that is," Jaworski said.
"There was no possible way to attack it. There is no limit
to Presidential pardon. It would have to be fought out in the
Constitution," Jaworski said.
"I'm sure that when Ford pardoned Nixon, he did not think he
would get any kind of reaction' from Jaworski, Dash said, suggesting
Ford believed Jaworski was too weary of Watergate to intervene.
:
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Watergate
20
FORD/DOLE
Jaworski said Dash was in no position to know whether
or not the Special Prosecutor was weary because the two had no
contact during the last 8 months of the investigation.
"If his (Dash's) comments (in the interview) are no more
erudite than the questions he asked on the Watergate
committee, then I'm not concerned," " Jaworski said.
--UPI (10/28/76)
Watergate
FORD/DOLE
Attorney General Edward Levi stands by his refusal to
investigate President Ford's role in a 1972 Watergate controversy
despite a claim that key witnesses never were questioned, the
Justice Department said Wednesday.
A Department spokesman restated Levi's decision in response
to an NBC News report suggesting Levi acted on incomplete evidence
in deciding there are no grounds to investigate the
President.
Robert Havel, the Justice spokesman, said Levi explained
adequately last week why he turned down Congressional requests
to investigate Ford's actions.
"We found no credible evidence and we stand by that,"
Havel said.
NBC-TV reporter Carl Stern said he had learned Levi made his
no-investigation decision without questioning "two of the three
most available witnesses" -- Dean and William Timmons.
Stern said investigators did question Cook, but not under
oath and without asking to see "supporting records he says he has." "
Following Stern's report, Rep. Henry Reuss sent Ford a telegram
urging him to answer the charges publicly at a campaign appearance
before educators in Milwaukee Thursday.
"I ask that you tell this inedpendent organization of
educators whether or not you talked to Richard Cook or any other
White House personnel about the
investigation at any time
in 1972," Reuss said.
BERALD R. FORD
Watergate
21
FORD/DOLE
Stern's report also drew a sharp response from Cook,
who said he was "anxious to state under oath the circumstances
surrounding Dean's distortions regarding me," and who alleged
NBC has paid Dean a $7500 advance for documentary rights to
his book. Cook asked the network to explain why it had "concealed"
that arrangement.
An NBC spokesman said network news President Richard Wald issued
a statement two weeks ago saying: "NBC had no financial interest
in the success of John Dean's book. A year ago, when we were
planning a documentary on the Nixon administration, we took an
option to buy the TV rights to the book he (Dean) was writing.
"We paid $7500 for thatoption. It gave us a first negotiating
position if we wanted to buy the book; at the insistence of Mr.
Dean's lawyer, it expressly ruled out any obligation by Mr. Dean
to appear on NBC or do anything at all for NBC unless we decided
to pick up that option and pay for the privilege. We havenot
picked up the option. We have not paid for the privilege."
--UPI (10/27/76)
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
5
FORD/DOLE CAMPAIGN
Watergate Probe
Dash Accuses Levi of "Conflict of Interest"
Sam Dash said Thursday Attorny General Edward Levi has
been placed in "an essential and inherent conflict of interest"
situation by persons urging him to investigage President Ford's
alleged role in the Watergate investigation.
Dash also told reporters that Ford and Jimmy Carter differ
considerably on almost all Watergate reforms backed by the
Citizens' Committee for Watergate Reform.
Dash accused Ford of making "misleading and inaccurate
statements" about his role in blocking a 1972 investigation by
the House Banking Committee into financing of illegal
Watergate activities.
Dash said Ford contended the Special Prosecuter had
investigated and cleared him, "and the actual fact is the
Special Prosecuter said it was not in his jurisdiction."
AP, UPI, CBS (10/28/76)
Issues
Dole Forgets World War II Comment
Aides to Bob Dole say he can't remember telling a national
television audience that this century's wars were "Democrat wars."
Despite his use of the phrase as recently as Monday, the
candidate does not recall saying it during his nationally
televised debate with Walter Mondale, they said.
Dole told a New Mexico party breakfast Thursday he
received an early morning phone call from President Ford, who
told him, "we're beginning to put it all together," and urged
him to "keep doing what we're doing, it will come out all
right for America next Tuesday."
He also quoted Ford as saying, "We've got the momentum.
It's moving just right."
AP (10/28/76)
BERRAD FORD LIBRARY
November 27, 1973
MEMORANDUM
To:
Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman
From: Bob Trainor
Re:
Request to Reopen Ford Confirmation Hearings
I have carefully reviewed the correspondence forwarded
to you by Representative Elizabeth Holtzman requesting that
the Ford confirmation hearing be reopened to permit clafi-
fication of what she believes to be contradictory statements
uttered by Mr. Ford concerning his involvement in the Watergate
cover-up. In support of her request she references three
allegedly inconsistent statements: (1) Mr. Ford's testimony
before the Senate Rules Committee on November 5, 1973; (2)
Mr. Ford's testimony before this Committee on November 26,
1973, and; (3) an affidavit submitted to this Committee on
November 26, 1973, by Mr. William Timmons of the White House
staff.
An analysis of these three alleged inconsistent statements
discloses that, in fact, they are not inconsistent at all.
First, Ms. Holtzman cites Senator Robert Byrd's inquiry of
Mr. Ford appearing on pages 128-29 of the printed Senate hear-
ings. In pertinent part the inquiry and response are as follows:
Senator Byrd: Were you in contact with anyone
at the White House during the period of August
Through October 1972 concerning the Patman Com-
mittee's possible investigation of the Watergate
breakin?
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Mr. Ford: Not to my best recollection. The best
and, I think most authoritative answer to this
question is one that Representative Jorry (sic)
Brown
submitted to the Ervin Committee.
(Congressman Brown's statement was then submitted
for the record)
-2-
I believe that Mr. Ford's response to Senator Byrd's
question was predicated on Mr. Ford's belief that Senator
Byrd wished to determine if any contact was made with the
White House for the specific purpose of receiving instruc-
tions or information relating to the possible Banking and
Currency Committee investigation. While Mr. Ford's answer
indicates that he could not recall any contact with the
White House for the specific purpose of receiving instruc-
tions, he expresses an awareness of Mr. Brown's contacts
with the members of the Administration during this period.
Furthermore, I believe that Ms. Holtzman's account of
Mr. Ford's testimony before the Senate is misleading in the
way in which it is presented. Ms. Hottzman recounts in the
text of her letter Mr. Ford's answer to Senator Byrd's in-
quiry in the following manner:
Mr. Ford: Not to my best recollection. (At
284.) Almost daily I talked to Mr. Timmons,
or someone in the Legislative Liaison Office
of the White House but even in this case I do
not recall any conversations concerning this
particular matter. (At 286.)
In truth, all matter appearing after the first sentence
"Not to my best recollection (At 284.)" was in response to a
second question offered by Senator Byrd appearing on pages
134-35 of the printed Senate hearings. Specifically, Senator
Byrd's question and Mr. Ford's response is as follows:
Senator Byrd: Mr. Ford, you undoubtedly would
recall any conversation you might have during
that period of August-October with the President,
with Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Dean, or
anyone at the White House, in connection with
the proposed investigation by the Patman Committee.
Do you recall any such conversations that would
indicate that the White House wanted you to lend
your efforts as a leader, to blocking such an in-
vestigation? (emphasis added)
Mr. Ford: I can say categorically, Senator Byrd,
I never talked with the President about it, or
&
FORD
with Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Dean. I
know I had no conversation with them now.
GERALD
LIBRARY
Almost daily, during my period as Republican
leader in the House, I talked with Mr. Timmons, or
someone in the Legislative Liaison Office of the
White House, but even in this case I do not recall
any conversations concerning this particular matter.
-3-
It is my interpretation that Mr. Ford's answer was strictly
in response to the question of whether he had received instruc-
tions from the White House to lead the effort to block the
Patman investigation rather than, as Ms. Holzaman would have you
believe, in response to the question of whether he had ever,
under any circumstances, discussed the Patman matter with Timmons.
In light of the above, Mr. Ford's testimony before the Com-
mittee on November 26, 1973, stating that while he never contacted
the White House or Timmons specifically for the purpose of dis-
cussing the possible Banking and Currency investigation, he may
have briefly and generally mentioned the proposed investigation,
does not in any way seem inconsistent with his earlier Senate
testimony.
An examination of the affidavit submitted by Mr. Timmons
does present some question as to the total accuracy of Mr. Ford's
statements relating to the Patman investigation. On the one
hand, Ford admits that he may have generally discussed the matter
with Timmons, while Timmons categorically denies ever having com-
municated with Ford on the issue. The severity of this incon-
sistency is slight when viewed in terms of the inability of Ford
to recall specific instances where he may have spoken with Timmons
about the matter. Ford spoke in terms of his conversations with
Timmons on this issue as possible occurrences, stating "we might
have discussed very generally the situation there," and "/H/e may
have asked me thatstatus of
"
Ms. Holtzman suggests on page 3 of her letter that Mr. Timmons'
affidavit is deficient in that it covers only the period from
September 21 through October, rather than the entire period begin-
ning in August. It appears that Mr. Timmons did not intentionally
omit the month of August from his sworn statement but was asked
only to consider the "Fall" of 1972. The significance of this
one month omission is, at best, slight, since the vote taken by
the Banking and Currency Committee considering the authorization
of subpoena power did not take place until October 3, 1972. Any
concerted effort, it could be argued, to obstruct the investigation
certainly would have occurred just prior to the vote.
Of Further note is the fact that the Banking and Currency
Committee refused to authorize the subpoena power by a vote of
20 to 15. While all of the Republicans present for the vote (14)
cast their ballot in opposition to the resolution, they were
joined by six Democrata to defeat the resolution. It is apparent
therefore, that it took a bipartisan effort to defeat FARD Reuss'
resolution.and was not purely a Republican effort
GERALD
LIBRARY
-4-
Hs. Holtzman refers in her letter to John Dean's testi-
mony before the Ervin Committee and urges that he be called
to testify before this Committee. John Dean, in his testimony,
never referred to Mr. Ford by name as a target of White House
pressure to obstruct the Banking and Currency investigation.
Moreover, Congressman Garry Brown submitted to the Watergate
Committee a lengthy statement detailing the Administration's
involvement in the matter. He did not indicate that Ford was
involved in any way nor was he ever called to appear before
the Committee to explain his statement.
In this regard, it is important to remember that this Com-
mittee is in receipt of a letter from Senator Ervin stating
that his Committee has uncovered no information that in any way
bears on the qualifications of Mr. Ford to be Vice President of
the United States.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
WASHINGTON
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AFFIDAVIT
I, WILLIAM E. TIMMONS, being duly sworn according
to law, do hereby swear and affirm that during the Fall
of 1972 I had no communications, written or oral, with
Rep. Gerald R. Ford in regard to any proposal or
intention of the Banking and Currency Committee of
the House of Representatives to conduct an investigation
and/or hold hearings on the Watergate. break-in and
related issues.
WILLIAM E. TIMMONS
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this 26th day of
November, 1973.
may 31, 1978
GESALE FORD VIBRAGA
November 27, 1973
MEMORANDUM
To:
Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman
From: Bob Trainor
Re:
Request to Reopen Ford Confirmation Hearings
I have carefully reviewed the correspondence forwarded
to you by Representative Elizabeth Holtzman requesting that
the Ford confirmation hearing be reopened to permit clafi-
fication of what she believes to be contradictory statements
uttered by Mr. Ford concerning his involvement in the Watergate
cover-up. In support of her request she references three
allegedly inconsistent statements: (1) Mr. Ford's testimony
before the Senate Rules Committee on November 5, 1973; (2)
Mr. Ford's testimony before this Committee on November 26,
1973, and; (3) an affidavit submitted to this Committee on
November 26, 1973, by Mr. William Timmons of the White House
staff.
An analysis of these three alleged inconsistent statements
discloses that, in fact, they are not inconsistent at all.
First, Ms. Holtzman cites Senator Robert Byrd's inquiry of
Mr. Ford appearing on pages 128-29 of the printed Senate hear-
ings. In pertinent part the inquiry and response are as follows:
Senator Byrd: Were you in contact with anyone
at the White House during the period of August
Through October 1972 concerning the Patman Com-
mittee's possible investigation of the Watergate
breakin?
Mr. Ford: Not to my best recollection. The best
and, I think most authoritative answer to this
question is one that Representative Jorry (sic)
:
FORD
Brown
submitted to the Ervin Committee.
GERALD
(Congressman Brown's statement was then submitted
LIBRARY
for the record)
-2-
I believe that Mr. Ford's response to Senator Byrd's
question was predicated on Mr. Ford's belief that Senator
Byrd wished to determine if any contact was made with the
White House for the specific purpose of receiving instruc-
tions or information relating to the possible Banking and
Currency Committee investigation. While Mr. Ford's answer
indicates that he could not recall any contact with the
White House for the specific purpose of receiving instruc-
tions, he expresses an awareness of Mr. Brown's contacts
with the members of the Administration during this period.
Furthermore, I believe that Ms. Holtzman's account of
Mr. Ford's testimony before the Senate is misleading in the
way in which it is presented. Ms. Hottzman recounts in the
text of her letter Mr. Ford's answer to Senator Byrd's in-
quiry in the following manner:
Mr. Ford: Not to my best recollection. (At
284.) Almost daily I talked to Mr. Timmons,
or someone in the Legislative Liaison Office
of the White House but even in this case I do
not recall any conversations concerning this
particular matter. (At 286.)
In truth, all matter appearing after the first sentence
"Not to my best recollection (At 284.)" was in response to a
second question offered by Senator Byrd appearing on pages
134-35 of the printed Senate hearings. Specifically, Senator
Byrd's question and Mr. Ford's response is as follows:
Senator Byrd: Mr. Ford, you undoubtedly would
recall any conversation you might have during
that period of August-October with the President,
with Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Dean, or
anyone at the White House, in connection with
the proposed investigation by the Patman Committee.
Do you recall any such conversations that would
indicate that the White House wanted you to lend
your efforts as a leader, to blocking such an in-
vestigation? (emphasis added)
Mr. Ford: I can say categorically, Senator Byrd,
i
FORD
I never talked with the President about it, or
with Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Dean. I
know I had no conversation with them now.
GERALD
LIBRARY
Almost daily, during my period as Republican
leader in the House, I talked with Mr. Timmons, or
someone in the Legislative Liaison Office of the
White House, but even in this case I do not recall
any conversations concerning this particular matter.
-3-
It is my interpretation that Mr. Ford's answer was strictly
in response to the question of whether he had received instruc-
tions from the White House to lead the effort to block the
Patman investigation rather than, as Ms. Holzaman would have you
believe, in response to the question of whether he had ever,
under any circumstances, discussed the Patman matter with Timmons.
In light of the above, Mr. Ford's testimony before the Com-
mittee on November 26, 1973, stating that while he never contacted
the White House or Timmons specifically for the purpose of dis-
cussing the possible Banking and Currency investigation, he may
have briefly and generally mentioned the proposed investigation,
does not in any way seem inconsistent with his earlier Senate
testimony.
An examination of the affidavit submitted by Mr. Timmons
does present some question as to the total accuracy of Mr. Ford's
statements relating to the Patman investigation. On the one
hand, Ford admits that he may have generally discussed the matter
with Timmons, while Timmons categorically denies ever having com-
municated with Ford on the issue. The severity of this incon-
sistency is slight when viewed in terms of the inability of Ford
to recall specific instances where he may have spoken with Timmons
about the matter. Ford spoke in terms of his conversations with
Timmons on this issue as possible occurrences, stating "we might
have discussed very generally the situation there," and "/H/e may
have asked me thatstatus of
"
Ms. Holtzman suggests on page 3 of her letter that Mr. Timmons'
affidavit is deficient in that it covers only the period from
September 21 through October, rather than the entire period begin-
ning in August. It appears that Mr. Timmons did not intentionally
omit the month of August from his sworn statement but was asked
only to consider the "Fall" of 1972. The significance of this
one month omission is, at best, slight, since the vote taken by
the Banking and Currency Committee considering the authorization
of subpoena power did not take place until October 3, 1972. Any
concerted effort, it could be argued, to obstruct the investigation
certainly would have occurred just prior to the vote.
Of Further note is the fact that the Banking and Currency
Committee refused to authorize the subpoena power by a vote of
20 to 15. While all of the Republicans present for the vote (14)
cast their ballot in opposition to the resolution, they were
joined by six Democrata to defeat the resolution. It is apparent
therefore, that it took a bipartisan effort to defeat Mr. Reuss'
resolution.amd was not purely a Republican effort.
:
FORD
GERALD
LIGRAR
-4-
Ms. Holtzman refers in her letter to John Dean's testi-
mony before the Ervin Committee and urges that he be called
to testify before this Committee. John Dean, in his testimony,
never referred to Mr. Ford by name as a target of White House
pressure to obstruct the Banking and Currency investigation.
Moreover, Congressman Garry Brown submitted to the Watergate
Committee a lengthy statement detailing the Administration's
involvement in the matter. He did not indicate that Ford was
involved in any way nor was he ever called to appear before
the Committee to explain his statement.
In this regard, it is important to remember that this Com-
mittee is in receipt of a letter from Senator Ervin stating
that his Committee has uncovered no information that in any way
bears on the qualifications of Mr. Ford to be Vice President of
the United States.
FORD
GENALD
LIBRARY
WASHINGTON
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AFFIDAVIT
I, WILLIAM E. TIMMONS, being duly sworn according
to law, do hereby swear and affirm that during the Fall
of 1972 I had no communications, written or oral, with
Rep. Gerald R. Ford in regard to any proposal or
intention of the Banking and Currency Committee of
the House of Representatives to conduct an investigation
and/or hold hearings on the Watergate. break-in and
related issues.
WILLIAM E. TIMMONS
Sworn to and subscribed
before me this 26th day of
November, 1973.
My commission expires may 31, 1978
NOTARY PUBLIC
FORD : LIBRARY
Confirmation of Gerald R. Ford as Vice President
of the United States
DISSENTING VIEWS OF MS. ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN
I cannot in good conscience recommend that this House confirm
Gerald R. Ford as Vice President of the United States. First, the
Judiciary Committee's investigation remains incomplete in two criti-
cal respects: the constitutionality of Mr. Ford's taking office and cer-
tain unresolved conflicts in his testimony. Second, despite Mr. Ford's
personal affability and the rectitude of his personal finances, he does
not meet the high standards which, under the 25th Amendment, we
are bound to apply to his nomination.
The Constitutional Impediment
Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution prohibits a Representative,
during his term, from appointment to "any civil Office under the Au-
thority of the United States
the emoluments whereof shall have
been increased during such time." In this term Congress has passed
Public Law 93-136, which increased the civil service retirement bene-
fits for the Vice President. There is little question that this increased
benefit constitutes an "emolument."
Unfortunately, this Committee did not adequately explore whether
this emolument is a bar to Mr. Ford's assuming office when confirmed.
No witnesses were heard on this question, and no legal memoranda
were available to the Committee when it disposed of this question.
Yet, the question is a serious one. The constitutional debates and the
policy of the emoluments clause would indicate that it applies to an
appointed vice president. I have attached an analysis prepared by a
Professor at the Yale Law School indicating that the confirmation of
Gerald Ford as Vice President might well run afoul of Article I,
Section 6.
This House has an obligation to assure that whoever is confirmed
does not serve under a constitutional cloud. At this stage of the pro-
ceedings no such assurance can be given. Clearly, if remedial legisla-
tion is needed to perfect the confirmation, it ought to be enacted now.
The Unresolved Conflicts in Mr. Ford's Testimony
A second and equally important unresolved problem concerns Mr.
Ford's statements about his role in the effort. which some have alleged
was initiated and coordinated by the White House, to halt the investi-
gation into certain aspects of the Watergate affair bv the House Bank-
ing and Currency Committee in late summer and fall of 1972. In his
Senate testimony, the nominee admitted having organized two meet-
ings for Banking and Currency Committee Republicans to "discuss"
the investigation, but he firmly denied acting to halt the investigation
at the behest of the White House.
Indeed, Mr. Ford broadly and explicitly denied having discussed
the matter of the investigation with any White House official during
the entire period that the proposed investigation was an issue in the
House. See page 284 of typed Senate Transcript.)
(65)
UERALD FORD LIBRARY
66
On the last day of his testimony before the House, however, Mr. Ford
for the first time made sworn statements which indicated that he had
indeed discussed the matter of the Patman investigation with Mr.
Timmons, a White House liaison officer. (See pages 706-707 of House
typed transcript.)
Mr. Ford's House testimony therefore calls into question his testi-
mony before the Senate. Because this testimony came at the very end
of the hearings, it was impossible to pursue further the nature and
content of the "general" discussions Mr. Ford then recalled, and to
resolve the contradiction with earlier testimony. To do so before the
nominee is confirmed is imperative, because at a time when the Ameri-
can people are clamoring for absolute candor from their national lead-
ers, the House would do a disservice both to them and to the nominee
by leaving unresolved in the record a disturbing and serious contra-
diction about a matter bearing directly on Mr. Ford's fitness for the
Vice Presidency.
I am therefore constrained to recommend that action on the con-
firmation be postponed until this problem and the constitutional ques-
tions are answered.
Obligations under the 25th Amendment
By requiring Congress to act as the surrogate of the American peo-
ple, the 25th Amendment places a heavy burden on the Members of
this House. Under any circumstances, we must scrutinize a nominee
for Vice President in light of his fitness for the Presidency. In these
times, however, when the nation is enfeebled by the public's loss of
faith in its leaders, and when, thus enfeebled, we are nearly over-
whelmed by the most serious conjunction of domestic and foreign pol-
icy problems we have faced in many years, we must insist that the
person we confirm as Vice President can, if he becomes President, re-
capture public confidence and give us honest, compassionate, imagina-
tive and outstanding leadership.
Mr. Ford does not meet this test.
The Secret Bombing of Cambodia
Unfortunately, he cannot claim truly high marks for candor. Know-
ing full well that Mr. Nixon had lied to the American people about the
secret bombing of Cambodia, Mr. Ford nonetheless gave his personal
assurance on the floor of the House in 1970 that Mr. Nixon had never
deceived the Congress or the public. Should we accept as a potential
President a man who shrugs off as "political license" his own failure
to be candid with his colleagues and the public, and who affirmatively
defends, as Mr. Ford did during our hearings, the right of a President
to lie?
The Banking and Currency Committee Investigation
The nominee's judgment also comes into question when we examine
his leadership role in killing the House Banking Committee's Water-
gate investigation before the 1972 presidential election. The Commit-
tee's staff had uncovered evidence that illegal campaign funds had been
used to finance the Watergate break-in and that high White House of-
ficials were implicated in the affair. Mr. Ford admits that he helped
sea
block the investigation.
GERALD
Nomination of Gerald R. Ford to be the Vice President of the U.S.
Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, November 1973
156
Mr. EDWARDS. In hindsight, do you think your decision was correct?
Mr. Ford. Well, it is somewhat bolstered by legal scholars. There has
been no definitive decision. I think I could produce as many scholars
who believe as I do as others might produce for their viewpoint. So I
think it is an unresolved matter where there is an honest difference of
opinion.
Mr. EDWARDS. Had you discussed the matter previously with the
Vice President before he came to the Speaker's?
Mr. FORD. I had on two occasions. as I recollect, at his request, not
to just discuss his possibly submitting his letter to the Speaker, but to
Jet him give me and one other Member of the House an opportunity
to hear his side of the story, which he told both of us on some two
occasions. At the time, in both of those instances, he inferred in the
first and talked more affirmatively in the second that he might come
up and see the Speaker with this letter requesting action. I did not know
the day that he did it until I understood he was in the Speaker's office,
however.
Mr. EDWARDS. Did he discuss with you the rather large extent of his
criminal involvement before. in these previous discussions, in these
discussions before you met in the Speaker's office?
Mr. FORD. He discussed with me and one of my colleagues the allega-
tions that were alleged, not the full extent of them, and his willingness
to take an oath that they πcre untrue.
Mr. EDWARDS. Did he discuss his plan to submit the matter to the
House of Representatives with the President?
Mr. Ford. With the President?
Mr. EDWARDS. With the President.
Mr. FORD. I am not familiar one way or another with that
Mr. EDWARDS. He did not tell you at these previous meetings whether
or not he had discussed the matter with the President?
Mr. FORD. He did not.
Chairman RODINO. Your time has expired.
Ms. Holtzman?
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ford, it is very late in the day and you have been patient after
a long day, 2 days really of grilling, and I have a few questions to
ask of you at this point.
The first regards a report in October 1972 by the staff of the House
Banking and Currency Committee which uncovered a number of
serious allegations regarding the reelection campaign of President
Nixon, including information that large amounts of campaign con-
tributions had been traced to one or more of the Watergate suspects.
about a secret Republican fund of at least $350,000 available that was
being used for intelligence-gathering purposes, that a Mexican bank
had been used to launder large amounts of campaign funds, that
a Federal bank charter had been granted to a large Nixon campaign
donor in unusual haste, and that top officials in the Presidential cam-
paign had ordered the bugging of Democrats National Headquarters
as well as the surveillance of bank accounts of Democratic Congress-
men and officials.
According to your testiment in the Senate, I understand that Ton
as a Republican leader played a role in the stopping of the investign-
Ford
GERALD
LIBRAR
157
tion plan in connection with the report by the Banking and Currency
Committee investigation. This is not my question, Mr. Ford; let me
finish.
Now, I understand also from your testimony that although you
met with Mr. Timmons of the White House virtually every day,
you did not discuss with him these matters of the allegations in the
Banking and Currency staff report and you did not discuss the
White House role or White House interest in stopping the investiga-
tion by the Banking and Currency Committee; is that correct?
Mr. FORD. Well, first I should make one correction. I never testified
before the Ervin committee.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. No, no, I mean before the Senate Rules Committee,
I said before the Senate.
Mr. Ford. Oh, I thought you inferred Senator Ervin's committee.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. I set forth a story there and I have subsequently
included in the testimony over there the detailed statement that our
colleague, Mr. Brown, submitted to the Ervin committee involving
the whole matter.
Mr. Ford. Now, I said over there that-and by over there I mean the
Senate committee-that I did not discuss the action that I took, which
was to call two Republican meetings of members of the Banking and
Currency Committee with Mr. Timmons or anybody else.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. I understand. What I wanted to ask you was. did
you discuss with Mr. Timmons or with anybody else at the White
House whether or not the allegations made by the Banking and Cur-
rency staff had any basis in fact or not.
Did you discuss with them, let's say up to the period of November 1?
Mr. FORD. I do not remember discussing those allegations with any-
body on the White House staff in 1972.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. OK.
Well, my question then is really-it goes on the action that you
took investigation. with respect to that proposed Banking and Currency Committee
In a letter, as I understand it, reported in the press on November 1,
1972, you called the committee staff report the worst form of last-
minute smear tactics, and I am concerned that this was done without
an apparent attempt to verify with the White House people the charges
that had been made by that committee.
Mr. FORD. Well, my release in that regard was predicated on the
information that was given to me by the members on our side of the
aisle of the Committee on Banking and Currency.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well, as I understand it then, these committee
meetings-and I read Mr. Brown's. Congressman Brown's statement-
the problem that they felt with the Petman-proposed investigation
was that it was going to be a fishing expedition, and you, as minority
leader, attended these sessions.
Did you ever inform them one way c= the other that you had no
information charges? one way or another as to the truth or falsity of these
Mr. FORD. I was asked by several members on our side of the aisle
on that committee to call the committee together. That was and is a
responsibility, as the Republican leader in the Honse, to get groups
like that together when they have a problem. I did it. I presided.
1.
FORD
LIBRATA
15S
They discussed the position that they as a group ought to take in
those hearings or in those committee meetings, and in the course of
the discussions at those several meetings, comments were made 1.8
various members as to the information they thought might be avail-
able. and they thought that Mr. Patman was going on a fishing
expedition. and they had beliefs they thought were sound, and, there-
fore. decided to rote to postpone any action.
I think all the Republicans voted one way with the help of five
Democrats.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. I understand that but I, as I said, was concerned
and still am concerned that statements were made in an attempt to
block that committee investigation, and some of the charges out of
which it arose have subsequently turned out to be true, without real
investigation it seems by anyone as to whether or not those charges
had any basis in fact.
Mr. FORD. Well, I think what disturbed a number of members was
that Patman committee, which is the Committee on Banking and
Currency, has limited jurisdiction. It does not have the broad juris-
diction of the Ervin committee in the Senate that can cut across
jurisdictional lines between one standing committee and another. The
Subcommittee on Banking and Currency has rather arbitrary juris-
dictional limits and some of the things that were included in, as I rec-
ollect, in Mr. Patman's prospective investigation, and some of the
things that subsequently turned up in the Ervin committee were well
beyond the jurisdictional limits of Mr. Patman's Committee on Bank-
ing and Currency.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. But I take it that the laundering, the use of inter-
national banks, which still appears to turn out to be the case, for
the use of illegal campaign funds, probably did fall within the juris-
diction of that committee.
Mr. FORD. Yes, I gather that particular item did, and I would not
argue that but some of the other items were, I think a little beyond
the Banking and Currency Committee jurisdiction.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. That might be.
I would like to turn to another area. I am sure I am not going to
have time to finish it, but I feel it is importance simply to dispel any
remaining cloud that might arise at a future time.
I must say that I myself have reviewed the very intensive financial
investigation which has been made both by the IRS people and by the
committee staff, and I must say that I personally, and I am sure many
other people, are relieved that the stress thus far, and it has been
virtually complete, have shown that you personally have not profited
from your public trust, aside, of course, from your salary.
Mr. FORD. Thank you.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. And your honorariums. But me do live in a time
of enormous public distrust of various political people and in view of
the charges that have been surrounding the White House itself with
respect to campaign contributions and alleged favors done in response
to those campaign contributions, I would like to raise some instances
that have come to our attention which do not reflect any improper
conduct on your part, but I would like to give you the opportunity
under oath to dispel any possible impropriety at this time so that
nobody can say that we, as a committee, did not review this area and
you were not given an opportunity to comment on it.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRANT
706
Mr. FORD. I probably would have given it to my then administrative
assistant, Mr. Meyer, and he would have communicated with Mr. Vst
or Mr. Morton.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well, I would like to draw your attention again to
another letter that was contained in the-files transmitted to me her
Wednesday by Mr. Becker, in which you are writing again to Mr. Ger-
don and it is dated March 21, 1972, and in the second paragraph you
bottom: say-this is a letter apparently signed by you, has your name at the
I must also thank you for your generous check made out to the D.C. Committee
to Re-elect Gerry Ford. I am turning this check over to the Chairman of this
Committee and did want you to know my personal gratitude.
Does this letter in anyway refresh your recollection as to whether
the chairman of that committee, Mr. Mark, might have kept-records 13
to campaign contributions?
Mr. FORD. That was 3 thank you letter to Mr. Gordon.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Right.
Mr. FORD. As I indicated a moment ago, Mr. Gordon was a very long
and dear friend of mine. He apparently sent me or my office a check
and I transmitted it to Mr. Mark.
This does not refresh my memory as to the procedure that Mr. Vsrk
or Mr. Morton used. That was something that was internal as far as
they were concerned.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Does this letter in anyway refresh your recollection
as to the amount of the contribution made by Mr. Gordon ?
Mr. FORD. I am sorry.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Do you recall at this time the amount of the con-
tribution made by Mr. Gordon to the District of Columbia Committee!
Mr. FORD. I do not recall precisely, but it would be a fair guess that
it would be about $500.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you. I notice on top of the letter a notation
"campaign." Does that refer to any file called "campaign?"
Mr. FORD. It is not in my handwriting. I assume that is a notation
for the filing setup, and presumably this was a letter in that file that
was given on your request.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well, if there is such a file marked "campaign" from
which this came, I wonder if you would be kind enough to have your
staff review it and allow our staff to examine it. Perhaps it contains
other indications of campaign contributions to the District of Columbia
Committee in 1972.
Mr. FORD. I will be very glad to, and I think that is how we got these
other letters.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. That mav be. Thank you, Mr. Ford, in that respect.
I also wanted to clarify the record with respect to my questions on
the Banking and Currency Committee investigation. I gather it was
your testimony that you did not have any conversation with Mr. Tim-
mons or anybody else in the hite House regarding either of the
following: One, an intention on the part of the White House to squelch
the Banking and Currency Committee investigation, and second, the
truth or falsity of any of the allegations made.
My question is, we talked about. prior to November 1, 1972, and that
was your testimony, that you did not have such conversations. I would
just like to clarify the date. Would that go back to the time at which
707
the Banking and Currency Committee worked, became public around
toward the latter part of August 1972?
Mr. FORD. I believe so. As I recall my testimony, I said I never called
Mr. Timmons on this matter specifically. I also said in the course of
our discussions about many legislative matters we might have discussed
very generally the situation there, but I never called him nor he called
me concerning these particular problems in the Committee on Banking
and Currency.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well, I did not mean to misconstrue your testimony.
I thought that that was the gist of it.
But getting back to around the end of August deadline, the only
conversation you might have had are the ones you just referred to now?
Mr. FORD. That is my best recollection.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Can you recall now what conversations you had with
Mr. Timmons, even though they may have occurred in the context of
another phone call or about another subject?
Mr. FORD. He may have asked me the status of, one, any legislation
before the committee; and two, my appraisal of what the committee
might do. But it would not go into him urging me to do something with
our members of the committee or any Democrats on the committee or
})
my saying I had done this, because they are not involved in it, and my
only role was getting our members and our side together.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Did he express to you at any time, let us say toward
the end of August 1973, to the beginning of November, any concern
he might have had about the status of the Banking and Currency
Committee investigation?
Mr. FORD. That is a long time ago, and the details of that kind of a
conversation I could not actually relate to you. Whenever we talked
11
about that matter it was in general terms, not as to action requested by
them or action taken by me.
Chairman RODINO. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
All requests for time have expired.
Mr. CONYERS. 1 question is outstanding. I was granted 10 minutes.
Chairman RODINO. The gentleman was asked as to what time, and
the gentleman asked for 10 minutes and that 10 minutes has expired,
and other members yielded to the gentleman. Now, is the gentleman
making any further request for time?
Mr. CONYERS. I have several questions, Mr. Chairman, that I would
like to get on the record, and I would ask for a sufficient amount of
time to develop them.
Chairman RODINO. What is a sufficient amount of time?
Mr. CONTERS. Five minutes. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman RODINO. Five minutes. The gentleman is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. CONTERS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Ford, is it true that you helned Mr. Kellogg in his attempt to
obtain an ambassadorship?
Mr. FORD. I was asked to endorse an ambassadorship that Mr. Kel-
logg wanted.
Mr. CONYERS. Right. Did he not make 2 substantial contribution to
the Republican National Committee?
Mr. Form. It is my understanding that Mr. Kellogg. prior to the
election of 1968 or in 1968. made a contribution of $30,000 to the New
York State Republican campaign fund. Sometime in 1969, virtually
FORD
Nomination of Gerald R. Ford of Michigan to be Vice President
of the United States Report of the Committee on Rules and
Administration - November 23 1973/
90
DELAY IN CALLING UP HOUSE CONFERENCE REPORT ON 1972
FEDERAL ELECTION DISCLOSURE LAW
The CHAIRMAN. The effective date of the 1972 Federal election disclosure law
was delayed some 5 weeks in the House, from December 14, 1971, to January
1972, because of the failure to call up a conference report for final House action.
An enormous fundraising drive was conducted by Maurice Stans during the
5-week period prior to the effective date of the law. He raised, reportedly, more
than $11 million for President Nixon during this period. The Stans drive was
based on the premise that contributions should be made at that time by all
donors who wanted to keep their contributions secret from public scrutiny. Were
you ever approached by anyone from the White House, the Nixon Campaign
Committee, or the executive branch concerning the issue of delaying final passage
of this legislation by the House?
Mr. FORD. To my best recollection, Mr. Chairman, nobody contacted me from
any of those areas that you mentioned.
The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever discuss the issue of delaying that legislation
with any Members of Congress or with anyone else?
Mr. FORD. Well, naturally, in the job that I had, I had to know what was
coming up, what was to be programed at any one time on the floor of the House.
I do not now, nor did I then control the programing of legislation. That is
the responsibility of the majority party. I may have asked if it was coming
up. I may have made some comment, but in any case I was not the person who
would make the final decision.
BLOCKING INVESTIGATION BY HOUSE BANKING AND CURRENCY
COMMITTEE OF WATERGATE BREAK-IN
Mr. Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Com-
mittee tried to go into the captioned matter prior to the election last
November. The Republican members of the Committee opposed such
action. Thus it is appropriate to know what part Mr. Ford played in
blocking the investigation at that time.
The record shows his answers to questions propounded.
Senator BYRD. Representative Ford, will you relate to the Committee your
role, if any, in the blocking of an investigation by House Banking and Currency
Committee into the Watèrgate break-in as proposed by Chairman Wright Patman
in October of 1968?
give you the salient points.
Mr. FORD. Senator Byrd. I do not have the full details here, but I can outline,
Chairman Patman had proposed sometime in October of 1972 that his Com-
mittee, the Committee on Banking and Currency in the House, undertake an
investigation of certain American banks is trading or handling accounts between
an American bank and a foreign bank. And that the Senator-Chairnan Patman
wanted subpoena authority to carry out this investigation.
A number of members of that Committee on the Republican side and several
on the Democratic side were opposed to giving that authority to Mr. Patman.
A number of our Republicans on that Committee came to me and said, "Jerry,
we think you ought to call a meeting so that we on our side of the aisles could
bring the leadership up to date, and perhaps the leadership would give some
counsel to the Republican members of the Committee on Banking and Currency."
So my position, as the Republican leader of the House, st his request, called
a meeting. We met with the Republican members of that Committee on one or
two occasions. They brought us up to date
We talked about what the policy ought to be in the Committee, but there was
no Republican party decision made.
The action taken by the Republicans pins. I think five Democrats was, I think,
to deny Chairman Patman that power of subporta.
Senator BYRD. You may be aware John Dear testified to the Senate Watergate
Committee on June 25 of this year, that Enter Republican leaders "acted at the
request of the White House to block that investigation"
Were you in contact with anyone at the White House during the period of
August through October 1972 concerning the Patmen Committee's possible in-
vestigation of the Watergate break-in?
91
Mr. FORD. Not to my best recollection.
The best and, I think, the most authoritative answer to this question is one
that Representative Jerry Brown of the Third District of Michigan submitted to
the Ervin Committee.
Congressman Brown was very much involved as a member of the Committee
on Banking and Currency, and his name was much more closely identified with
this problem than mine.
As a result, he prepared the very detailed statements which I understood were
put in the record of the Ervin Committee.
Senator BYRD. Mr. Ford, you undoubtedly may recall now any conversation
you might have had during the period of August-October with the President, with
Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Dean, or anyone at the White House, in
connection with the proposed investigation by the Patman Committee.
Do you recall any such conversations that would indicate that the White House
wanted you to lend your efforts as a leader to cloaking such an investigation?
Mr. FORD. I can say categorically, Senator Byrd, I never talked with the Presi-
dent about it, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, and Mr. Dean.
I know emphatically I had no conversation with them now.
Almost daily, during my period as Republican leader in the House, I talked
with Mr. Timmons, or someone in the Legislative Liaison Office of the White
House, but even in this case I do not recall any conversations concerning this
particular matter.
Senator BYRD. Was there any discussion between you, Mr. Timmons, or between
you and the other members of the Committee or any of your colleagues in the
House to the effect that the investigation would possibly be harmful to the
President, harmful to his re-election chances in the then upcoming Presidential
election, or to the Republican party generally?
Mr. FORD. As I recall the two meetings that I attended, both of which I called,
the real issue that was discussed, and Jerry Brown's memo or prepared statement
probably expresses it better than I can, was that Mr. Patman, the Chairman of
the Committee on Banking and Currency in the House, was going about the matter
in expedition. the wrong way. And as I recall, statements were made he was going on a fishing
Now, the members on our side of the aisle in that Committee were concerned
about the procedure and the dangers that that procedure might lead to as a
precedent.
I think, in all honesty, that was the basic thrust of the action of the Repub-
licans. And I think every Republican on the Committee voted to deny that respon-
sibility or that power to the Chairman. And I think he was joined in favor by
five Democrats, as I recall.
So the majority turned down the authority.
Senator BYRD. But as I understand you, there was no-as I understand you,
any efforts that you may have contributed towards the stifling or the impeding or
the blocking of such investigation by the Patman Committee was not born of
your feeling, or at least your feelings as were expressed to anyone, your feeling
that such an investigation would be harmful to the President and harmful to his
chances of re-election or harmful to your party or harmful to his re-election?
Mr. FORD. The answer is no, Senator Byrd.
INFLATION
Senator PELL. Notwithstanding the fact that this administration has been
beset by many troubles, I think there is one national domestic problem that is
probably of more concern to everyone today than any other problem, and that
is the question of inflation.
I was wondering what you saw as your contribution toward ending this
tendency toward inflation?
Mr. FORD. I agree the greatest domestic problem we have today is inflation. I
think there are four ways you can go about trying to remedy it.
First, you have to identify where the major areas of inflation are.
No. 1 is food. No. 2 is petroleum.
Other than those two areas, I think we have made a reasonably good battle
with considerable success against inflation, but food and petroleum are serious.
The Congress asked that the President approve an agricultural bill aimed at
increasing supply. I think this is good legislation. I believe it will help alleviate
some of the problems as to the supply of food, and that would mean a holding of
the line, hopefully a reduction in the cost of food.
FORD
GERALD
LISEARY
Nomination of Gerald R. Ford of Michigan
to be Vice President of the United States
Hearings before the Committee on
Rules and Administration, U. S. Senate, November 1973.
128
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Pell?
Senator PELL. In the interest of time, I will limit myself to one
question. I would like to return for a moment to this question of in-
flation and the burdens imposed. particularly. on our older people. The
bill that passed the Senate and is in the House now calls for, I think.
a 7-percent increase. Before it passed the House, would you urge the
President to sign this bill or do you feel that—
Mr. Form. I believe that if you are going to increase the benefits.
you have to, in all honesty. find additional revenue. Nom. I have not
had a chance to study whether this added benefit payment that is pro-
vided in the Senate version requires additional revenue, whether we
have to increase the ceiling SO that you are taxing more of the income.
or whether me have to increase the rates. But if we have not provided
in such legislation additional revenues to keep the balance in the
social security trust funds-if The have not provided that revenue
I would urge that it be vetoed.
I hope that we can provide enough revenue because, in my oninion.
certainly the people in the older age brackets. because of inflation.
need the help. And I want to help them. But I do not want to destror
the social security concept by not providing sufficient revenues to
finance these additional benefits.
Senator PELL. Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bvrd?
Senator BYT.D. Representative Ford. will you relate to the commit-
tee your role. if any. in the blocking of an investigation by the House
Banking and Currency Committee into the Watergate breakin as pro-
posed by Chairman Wright Patman in October of 1972?
Mr. FORD. Senator Byrd. I do not have the full details here, but I
can give you the salient points.
Chairman Patman had proposed sometime in October of 1972 that
his committee. the Committee on Banking and Currency in the House.
undertake an investigation of certain American banks in trading or
handling accounts between an American bank and a foreign bank.
And investigation. Chairman Patman wanted subpena authority to carry out this
A number of members of that committee on the Republican side and
several on the Democratic side were opposed to giving that authority
to Mr. Patman. A number of our Republicans on that committee came
to me and said. "Jerry. ITC think you ought to call a meeting SO that
me on our side of the aisle could bring the leadership un to date. and
perhaps the leadership would give some counsel to the Republican
members of the Committee on Banking and Currency."
So as the Republican leader of the House. upon this request. I called
n meeting. We met with the Republican members of that cotamittes
on one or two occasions. They brought us up to date. Tie talked
about what the policy moht to be in the committee. has there
no Republican Party decision made. The action taken bE the Repul-
licans mins. T think. five Democrats was, I think, to deny Chairman
Patman that nower of subpena.
Senator BYRD. You may be aware that John Dean testified to the
Senate Watergate Committee on June 25 of this year that House Re
publican leaders "acted at the request of the White House in Net that
investigation." Were you in contact with anyone at the White House
=
FORD
129
turing the period of Angust through October 1972 concerning the
Patman committee's possible investigation of the Watergate breakin
Mr. FORD. Not to my best recollection. The best and, I think most
authoritative answer to this question is one that Representative Jerry
Brown of the Third District of Michigan submitted to the Ervin
ommittee.
Congressman Brown was very much involved as a member of the
Committee on Banking and Currency, and his name was much more
Plosely identified with this problem than was mine.
As a result, he prepared the very detailed statements which I under-
stord were put in the record of the Ervin committee. He was never
called to testify. But I would be glad to submit that statement by
Congressman Brown because it goes into this whole question in very
great depth.
I think it might be helpful to the part of this record if the chairman
of the committee would so permit.
The CHAIRMAN. You may supply them for the record.
Mr. FORD. I will, sir.
[The statement referred to follows:]
STATEMENT OF How. GARRY E. BROWN, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE
OF MICHIGAN, SUBMITTED TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL CAM-
PAIGN ACTIVITIES
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, at the outset, let me express my
deep appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee for providing me with
this opportunity to respond in kind to the allegations made by Mr. Dean in his
statement and earlier presentation to this Committee. To say that I was some-
what dumbfounded to learn of the allegations made by Mr. Dean is a gross under-
statement since my participation in the bipartisan effort by members of the House
Banking and Currency Committee, which resulted in the denial of the granting of
subpoena authority to the Chairman of our Committee. was in no way connected
with the so-called "cover-up" activities in which Mr. Dean has testified he
participated.
Perhaps it would be best for me to provide the Committee with a chronological
statement of what occurred in this regard on the House side, as best I can recall
it, and then provide the Committee with a particularized response to Mr. Dean's
several allegations.
Assuning the concurrence of the Committee in this proposed format of my testi-
mony. let me proceed with the chronological statement of activities on the House
side. the period of time over which these activities occurred having been late
August of 1972 to October 3, 1972. the latter date being the date of the meeting of
the House Banking and Currency Committee at which. by a vote of 15 to 20,
Chairman Patman's request for subpoena authority was denied.
While back in Michigan fulfilling commitments during the August Recess of
the Congress, on either the late afternoon of August 30 or the morning of An-
gust 31, 1972, I heard on my car radio that the Banking and Currency Committee
was interviewing Mr. Maurice Stans, the Chairman of the Finance Committee
in Re-Elect the President, with respect to the handling of campaign contributions
since there appeared to be a connection between the bandling of some of such
funds and the Watergate burglary.
Inasmuch as I had not been notified by my office in Washington. nor had I
received any notice in Michigan, that the Committee was meeting for this pur-
insi. I immediately got in touch with my Washington office and determined that
Chairman Patman had not called a meeting. nor had he notified my office of the
interviews with Stans. I then contacted the Banking and Currency Committee
staff to determine the facts with respect to the news broadeast I had heard
and determined that no Committee meeting had been called. but rather that
motain members of the Banking and Currency Committee staff. at the direction
of the Chairman. had individually interviewed Srans. I was unable to ascertain
:It that time from the staff the justification therefor or the reasons why Commit-
11.00 members had not been advised of Chairman Patman's initiation of such
investigation by staff members.
FOND
BERALD
LIBRARY
130
In riew of the media attention provoked, it appeared to me Patman's action
was prompted by political considerations, so I again called my Washington office
and asked my legislative assistant to carefully examine the Rules of the House
and the Rules of the Banking and Currency Committee to determine by what
authority Patman had initiated such investigation without first seeking the
authority of the Committee and by what authority he could do SO without even
notifying Committee members. As a result of such research by my legislative aide.
on Thursday, August 31. 1972 I dictated a letter to Chairman Patman citing the
Rules of the House and the Committee and indicating my displeasure over the
fact that he had initiated such investigation without seeking the concurrence of
the Committee or even norifying Committee members. This letter is attached as
Exhibit No. 1.
At this juncture, I should point out that to the best of my recollection, there
had been no Committee discussion of our Committee's jurisdiction over, or involve
ment in. an investigation of the Re-Elect Committee's handling of contributions
or their possible involvement in the financing of the Watergate burglary. In
short, the Committee staff investigation hit me as a complete surprise.
It being necessary for me to attend the fall Republican State Convention in
Detroit September 1 and 2. I did not return to Washington until late Monday.
Labor Day, September 4.
Inasmuch as the only information I had been able to develop regarding the
content of the interviews by Patman's staff members of Stans was from a Repub-
lican staff member who had been present during only a portion of such interviews.
I contacted Mr. Stans to attempt to determine the particulars about the staff
inquiry, whether or not a transcript had been made of such interviews or any
other record of the discussions in order that I might be apprised of the substance
of such interviews to the same extent as were the staff members and Mr. Patman.
In the course of my discussion of the matter telephonically with Mr. Stans. I
requested an opportunity to discuss the matter personally with him and arranged
to see him on the morning of September 6.
In view of Mr. Dean's statements on pages 103 and 104 to the effect that he and
others associated with the White House were aware of and concerned about the
Banking and Currency staff investigation as early as mid-August. I should point
out that my first contact of any kind with anyone from the White House or the
Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President was this call to Mr. Stans on Sep-
tember 5, 1972.1
Also, in view of Mr. Dean's association of the Banking and Currency Committer
with what he alleges were cover-up discussions going on at this time. it is essen-
tial to keep in mind the limited scope of the Patman investigation. In his letter to
me, received September 5, responding to my letter of August 31, 1972, Chairman
Patman said that his interest in an investigation was prompted by a letter he had
received from a Committee member who urged either Patman or the International
Finance Subcommittee Chairman to look into possible violations of the Foreign
Bank Secrecy Act by the Committee to Re-Elect the President in connection with
the transfer of some of its funds through Mexico. In addition, and subsequently.
Patman brought into the scope of his interest the circumstances surrounding a
$25,000 contribution to the Committee to Re-Elect the President by one who was
interested in a national bank charter application which was pending. In short. by
Patman's own statements, he was justifying jurisdiction of the Banking and Cur-
rency Committee over the investigation by limiting its scope to the use of banks
in the financial transactions of the Committee to Re-Elect the President, the bank
charter matter, and to the Watergate burglary by virtue of the surfacing of funds
in the bank account of Mr. Barker, one of those who had been arrested for par-
ticipation in such burglary.
Not satisfied with Patman's response of September 5, 1972, I immediately
drafted a letter to him, which letter was co-signed by several of my Republican
colleagues on the Committee. in which we, demanded that Petman call a meeting
of the Committee to discuss the whole matter. Our letter of September 5, 1972 is
attached as Exhibit No. 2.
In view of Patman's rationale for conducting the investigation. in my inter-
view with Mr. Stans on September 6, I attempted to ascertain the true facts from
him concerning the handling of campaign contributions. the alleged Mexican
I At no time, before. during. and since the period corered by this chronology. have I dL-
cussed the Committee's action or the Watergate matter with the President. Mr. Haldeman
Mr. Erlichman, Mr. Dean Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Colson. or aay similar person within the Inner
group mentioned by Mr. Dean.
GERMEN FORD
131
endering" of such funds. and their apparent ultimate deposit in Barker's bank
count. Mr. Stans informed me he did not know how or why the funds went to
and ended up in Barker's account, stating that Mr. Cordon Liddy, the gen-
counsel for the Committee, had been the one who made the decisions regard-
::: how contributions were reported, handled, etc. under the new campaign CX-
--nditure law. Since my inquiry involved the legality of the handling of such
unls, it was agreed I should talk with Mr. Kenneth Parkinson, who was the
"Il" legal counsel for the Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President, having
Increded Mr. Liddy, whose services had been terminated.
I met with Mr. Stans personally only this one time, but I may have talked
with him three or four times on the phone. During the course of these conversa-
tions, I am quite sure I suggested that it might be better for Mr. Stans to testify,
than to give Patman the opportunity to publicize and take political advantage of
Stans' non-appearance, it being the position of most Republican Committee mem-
lers that Patman's interest in an investigation was more political than anything
lip.
I discussed the application of the Bank Secrecy Act. the campaign expenditure
!aw, and other aspects of the matter telephonically with Mr. Parkinson several
times and met with him on one occasion of which I am certain and possibly a sec-
and time very briefly. although I cannot specifically recall a second occasion.
During this time, I had asked my legislative assistant, who is an attorney
and a former law clerk for a Federal Court of Appeals Judge, to brief for me
the question of the propriety of the appearance of Mr. Stans and others before
our Committee. In the course of this research done by both my legislative assist-
ant and myself, it became apparent that such an appearance could prejudice the
rights of those who might be indicted as a result of the grand jury proceedings
that were then in progress. Appreciation of this problem prompted me to write
11) both the Attorney General and Mr. Stans requesting the opinion of the Attor-
111°3' General with respect to the propriety of Mr. Stans' appearance as well as the
opinion of Mr. Stans' attorney concerning his own position on the appropriateness
of such appearance. These letters are attached as Exhibits No. 3 and 4, respec-
tively. At the time of the writing of these letters. Mr. Stans had not, to my
knowledge, decided whether or not he would voluntarily appear before the
Committee.
It is this letter of September 8 to the Attorney General which Mr. Dean has
said in his statement,
was, in fact, drafted by Parkinson for Congressman
Brown." I unequivocally deny this charge. The letter to the Attorney General
was dictated by me to my secretary and is my work product in every respect. It is
my best recollection that from the conversations I had with Mr. Stans and Mr.
Parkinson up to this point it appeared to me no decision had been made as to
whether or not Mr. Stans would appear. The decision to write such letters was
wholly my own and stemmed from my concern about the propriety of his ap-
pearance regardless of what his decision might be. such concern having been
prompted by the limited research done by my legislative aide and myself to this
time.
It would be asinine for me to say that in the course of my discussions of the
matter with Stans and Parkinson I did not mention the concern I felt about the
legal ramifications of Mr. Stans' appearance before the Committee and of my be-
lief that the legal opinions of those most closely involved, namely. the Attorney
General and Stans. should be obtained. In any such discussions. however. it was
always a matter of my apprising Stans and Parkinson of what I proposed to do,
rather than receipt by me of suggestions. requests. urgings. etc. from them.
Although I received no written response from the Attorney General to my let-
ter of September S, on September 12 Ralph Erickson. the Deputy Attorney General,
telephoned my office and talked with a member of my staff and advised that he
was calling in response to my letter of September S and indicated that the Attor-
ner General would be happy to talk with me about the matter but did not intend
to respond in writing. suggesting that the questions I had asked were now moot
because in the interim Mr. Stans had notified the Committee that he was de-
clining the invitation to testify.
During this period of time, the Banking and Currency Committee. although
considering other legislation, had been embroiled in the controversr about the
conduct of hearings by the Committee into the Parman charges, the scope of
which I have already described. But none of the activities regarding political
espionage, bugging, cover-up. etc. which have now surfaced and which are now
being discussed were known at the time the Banking and Currency Committee
was contemplating its hearings and it must also if kept in mind that Patman's
FORD
GERALD
132
effort to investigate the matter of the laundered funds and Barker's involvement
was analyzed by most of us at that time as being blatantly political in view of Els-
up-coming election.
Chairman Patman finally did discuss the matter with the Committee and
although objection was voiced by many of us, he scheduled a meeting of the Cop.
mittee for September 14 to receive the testimony of Stans and Phillip S. Hugbes
Director of the Office of Federal Elections, General Accounting Office. This Wills
the meeting at which Stans deelined to appear.
Because Stans had failed to appear voluntarily, Chairman Patman notified
the Committee on September 25. 1972 that he intended to seek the authority of
the Committee to issue subpoenas for Stans and several others at a meeting of the
Committee to be held October 3. When it became certain that the Chairman
would seek subpoena authority. my earlier concern about the propriety of sunt
appearance was renewed and intensified since in the meantime the legal research
done by me and my office had clearly established the danger of conducting 2
Congressional hearing when criminal proceedings were pending regarding the
same matter.
As a result, I again wrote to the Attorney General on September 26, 1972
pointing out to him that although the questions I bad raised in my September ,
letter might have become moot after Stans had declined to voluntarily testify.
Patman's plans to seek subpoena authority made my questions and concerns Term
real once again. This letter of September 26 is attached as Exhibit No. 5.
Despite my insistence in my letter to the Attorney General of September 26
1972 for an opinion to be erpressed. it wasn't until the late afternoon of October:
that I learned Mr. Henry Petersen, Assistant Attorney General, had replied tom
my letter of September 26. not to me, but to Patman. In fact, Patman had received
the response from Petersen before I knew that a response had been provided
since I was not given a copy until I requested the same. This letter from Petersez
is attached as Exhibit No. 6 and is the same as Dean's Exhibit No. 21.
In this regard. I felt at the time that the Department of Justice and the liter
new General's Office was being most uncooperative and, in fact. was taking =
rather untenable position of not wanting to get involved when mr research hel
clearly satisfied me that the success of their prosecutive efforts of those who had
been indicted by the grand jury could be seriously jeopardized by public hear-
ings of the Banking and Currency Committee under the law applicable therem
especially the holding in the Delaney case. It having been my position them
and it continues to be my position. as well as that of Archibald Cox. the Special
Prosecutor, that public hearings in prejudicing the rights of those who have
been accused, necessarily also seriously jeopardize the successful prosecution of
these individuals.
In any case, the Committee met on October 3 and, as is well known, roted 20-15
against authorizing the Chairman to issue the subpoenas he has requested."
Although it is of little pertinence to this chronology. I wish to add that (4)5-
sistent with my many-times stated position regarding the Banking and Current
Committee's investigation of this matter, to wit. that such investigation
await completion of criminal proceedings, I wrote to Chairman Patman in earis
January of this year urging him to designate a staff member or hire outside come
sel to monitor the criminal trials of the "Watergate Seven" so that we might !-
kept current on the proceedings of those trials so we would be prepared to Mr.
duct a Committee investigation upon completion of the criminal proceedings
Needless to say. the Chairman declined to grant my request and in a reply 1.5-
pressing manv reasons. closed the door upon any investigation br our Committe
From the foregoing. it is obvious that Mr. Dean, in his testimony before the
Senate Select Committee. either has stated things to be trne which he does HE
know to he true or has engaged in absolute falsehoods. More particularly. I revit
the following: (References are to the statement presented to your Committee w
June 25, 1973.)
On page 104. Mr. Dean states: "At some point in time during these investion-
tions Mr. Parkinson was put in touch with Congressman Gary (sic) Brown nb>
was a member of the Banking and Currency Committee."
2 In view of Mr. Dean's testimony about the proposed Patman witness list. I should I
at this noint that I attempted to determine who Parman wanted in subpoena. but It
nntil T received such list. hand delivered at 5:05 P.M. on 10/2/72. the evening before 1:00
10/3/72 meeting. that I or anyone else, to my knowledge. knew who Patman intended :-
subpoena and call as witnesses.
is
FORD
BERALD
LIBRARY
133
The fact is, Mr. Parkinson was not put in touch with me. I requested an oppor-
turity to talk to Mr. Parkinson during my original contact wtih Mr. Stans when
::e could not explain to me the several legal aspects of the handling of funds by
Mr. Liddy, the legal interpretation given to the campaign expenditure law as
it applied to contributions made to the Committee to Re-Elect the President before
and after April 7, 1972, and other aspects of the staff interrogation of Mr. Staus.
Also on page 104, Mr. Dean states:
"To the best of my recollection this may have resulted from discussions between
members of the White House Congressional Relations staff with the Republican
members of the Banking and Currency Committee to determine who would be
most helpful on the Committee and Brown indicated his willingness to assist."
Emphasis added.)
The fact is, I recall no conversation with anyone which could be interpreted as
my indicating a "willingness to assist." This is especially true if one interprets, as
he must, Mr. Dean's word "assist" as being willingness to assist in the White
House efforts to block the Patman Committee hearings for the second reason he
states on page 103; that being, and I quote
"and second, they just might
stamble into something that would start unraveling the cover-up."
It should be pointed out that as of even September S. 1972, or for that matter
as late as October 3. 1972, to my recollection, there had been no public suggestion
that a "cover-up" was in progress. The fact that I opposed such hearings at that
time because I was satisfied the law made inappropriate and undesirable the
conduct of hearings of our Committee while the criminal proceedings were pend-
inz and, in addition. thought Patman's desire for such hearings was purely
political, while for other reasons the White House may have opposed such hear-
ings. may make our goal similar, namely. the blocking of the hearings, but it is
totally improper to attribute the same motivation, as Mr. Dean has done.
Again on page 104. Mr. Dean states :
"On September Sth Congressman Brown sent a letter to the Attorney General
regarding the forthcoming appearance of Secretary Stans and others before the
Patman Committee. I have submitted to the Committee a copy of this letter
Exhibit No. 18), which was, in fact, drafted by Parkinson for Congressman
Brown." (Emphasis added.)
The fact is, this letter was not drafted by Parkinson for me, nor to the best
of my recollection does my letter to the Attorney General contain any input
from Parkinson, although of course, as I have already indicated I had apprised
Stans and Parkinson of my plans to solicit the opinion of the Attorney General.
On this same page 104. Dean again refers to "Parkinson's drafting the letter for
Congressman Brown," which is a repetition of the previous erroneous statement.
I wish to advise the Committee with respect to this statement that upon
learning of this charge made by Mr. Dean. I knew it to be so completely erroneous
that I sought an explanation for the making of same DI Mr. Dean. I attempted to
contact Mr. Parkinson to determine whether or not he. or anyone eise to his
knowledge, might have suggested or stated to Mr. Dean that he. Parkinson. had
drafted such letter. Mr. Parkinson was not immediately available and I was
unable to talk with him until the late afternoon of Tuesday. June 26, 1973. Dean's.
statement having been made, as you will recall, in his testimony before this
Committee on June 25. 1973. In this telephone conversation with Mr. Parkinson
on Jnne 26, Mr. Parkinson unequivocally denied that he had drafted such letter
or that he, or anyone else to his knowledge, had advised Mr. Dean that such
letter had been drafted by him, Parkinson.
However. in the course of my attempting to learn from Parkinson how Dean
could possibly have made this statement, Parkinson recalled that be had prepared
a draft of a letter at the request of Mr. Dean which he. Parkinson. understood
was to be furnished to the Attorney General OR C proposed response by the
Attorney General to my letter of September S. 19.2 Dean's Exhibit No. 1S. my
Exhibit No. 3). I requested a copy of this proposed draft which was prepared by
Mr. Parkinson for Mr. Dean and it is attached hereto 25 Exhibit No. T. It is Mr.
Parkinson's further recollection that subsequent to 2:5 preparation of this draft.
Mr. Dean took the same for what Mr. Parkinson understood to be a further-
review or revision by Mr. Dean. Of course. this proposed draft was apparently
never used as intended since no response was made at that time to my letter of
September S, 1972.
3 Although Dean cites no time frame for this statement. It shoul be remembered I Inita
peniently and aggressively had commenced opposing the Patman action as early as S/31/72
and had no knowledge of what Dean says were on-going conversations within his group on
the subject.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
134
Although it is relatively insignificant. on page 105 of his testimony, Dean states
that DO response was sent by the Justice Department to my letter of September $
prior to the scheduled appearance of Mr. Stans on September 14: whereas, at-
though Dean's discussion of this matter on page 105 may be substantially accurate.
I did receive a telephonic response to my letter of September S from Deputy
Attorney General Erickson in which, as I have above pointed out, he indicated
no written response would be provided and that he felt the questions I had
raised in my letter of September S were moot because of Stan's decision not in
appear before the Committee voluntarily.
On page 10S, Mr. Dean states:
"I began receiving increasing pressure from Mitchell. Stans. Parkinson and
others to get the Justice Department to respond to the September Stii letter of
Congressman Brown as a vehicle that Congressman Brown could use in persuad-
ing others not to vote in favor of the subpoenas. Congressman Broien felt that
with this document in hand he could give the Republicons and others something to
hang their rote on." (emphasis added)
The fact is, I know of no basis for these statements since my only purpose in
writing to the Attorney General on both occasions, that is, September S and
September 26, was to attempt to get the Attorney General to recognize the law
for what I knew it to be and to appreciate the prosecutorial problems which
would be created by public hearings of the Committee. I especially know of no
basis in fact for the underlined portion of the foregoing quote from Dean's
statement, since I cannot recall having expressed the same to anyone. However.
there can be little question but what such a letter would have a favorable impact
upon other members.
At the bottom of page 108 and on page 109 of Dean's statement he states that
much effort was put forth by many people, including Mr. Timinous, to persuade
meinbers of the Committee to vote against the hearings. I can only speak for this
member of the Committee in this regard, but I do not recall receiving any urging
||
from anyone at the White House to cast my vote against such hearings.
In fact, I am very certain I had no significant contact from anyone associated
with rhe Administration or the White House regarding the hearings other than
the contacts I have already discussed with Mr. Stans and Mr. Parkinson.
To the best of my recollection, my only contacts with White House personnel
were insignificant contacts I had in the course of normal legislative business
with Pick Cook. the White House liaison agent for the House of Representatives.
who. father than suggesting or urging me to take any course of action, merely
inquired of me as to how things were going and whether or not I thought those
of us who opposed the hearings would be successful in our opposition. In my dis-
cussions with other members of the Committee at that time and since, I have ret
to find one who indicated that he or she was pressured in any way to vote as he
or she did.
In conclusion, I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the
Committee for your patience in permitting me to provide this probably unneces-
sarily lengthy statement. My purpose in doing so was to establish for the record
not only the absence of culpability on my part, but the absence of culpability on
the part of the other members of the House Committee on Banking and Cur-
rency in opposing the Patman investigation, to the extent that I have any knowl-
edge of other members' actions.
I hope I have satisfied the Committee and the listening, viewing, and reading
audience that what Mr. Dean has concluded was causally related action by the
majority of our Committee to what he was doing at the White House, has no
basis in fact and should not be so presumed. If opposition to action proposed by
one's colleagues. when that opposition is based on principle and proper political
motivation, cannot be voiced without such opposition being interpreted as culpa-
ble conduct and obstruction of justice, then we certainly have reached a sorry
state of affairs in our political and legislative system.
If I have done nothing else. I trust that I have at least somewhat dispelled
the "guilt by association" implicit in Mr. Dean's testimony by his linking of the
House Banking and Currency Committee action with the whole gamut of eulpa-
ble conduct about which he has testified.
I will be glad to answer any questions the members of the Committee might
care to pose.
Thank you.
Senator BYRD. Mr. Ford. you undoubted!= would recall any conver-
sation you might have had during that period of Angust-October with
the President, with Mr. Haldeman. Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Dean. or any-
FORD
GERALD
LIBRAR
135
ane at the White House, in connection with the proposed investigation
in the Patman committee. Do you recall any such conversations that
would indicate that the White House wanted you to lend your efforts,
it leader, to blocking such an investigation?
Mr. FORD. I can say categorically, Senator Byrd, I never talked with
the President about it, or with Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, and
Mr. Dean. I know emphatically I had no conversation with them now.
Almost daily, during my period as Republican leader in the House,
I talked with Mr. Timmons, or someone in the Legislative Liaison Of-
fice of the White House, but even in this case I do not recall any con-
versations concerning this particular matter.
Senator BYRD. Was there any discussion between you and Mr. Tim-
mons or between you and the other members of the Patman committee
or any of your colleagues in the House to the effect that the investiga-
tion would possibly be harmful to the President, harmful to his reelec-
tion chances in the then upcoming Presidential election, or to the
Republican Party generally !
Mr. FORD. As I recall the two meetings that I attended, both of
which I called, the real issue that was discussed-and Jerry Brown's
memo or prepared statement probably expresses it better than I can-
was that Mr. Patman, the chairman of the Committee on Banking and
Currency in the House, was going about the matter in the wrong way.
And as I recall, statements were made he was going on a fishing
expedition.
Now, the members on our side of the aisles in that committee were
concerned about the procedure and the dangers that that procedure
might lead to a precedent. I think, in all honesty, that was the basic
thrust of the action of the Republicans. And I think every Republican
on the committee voted to deny that responsibility or that power to the
chairman. And I think they were joined in that vote by five Democrats,
as I recall. So a majority of the committee turned down the authority.
Senator BYRD. But as I understand you, any efforts that you may
have contributed toward the stifling or impeding or blocking of such
investigation by the Patman committee were not born of your feeling,
or at least your feelings as expressed to anyone, that such an investiga-
tion would be harmful to the President, harmful to his chances of
reelection, or harmful to your party
Mr. FORD. The answer is no, Senator Byrd.
Senator BYRD. Now, Mr. Ford, as you know, the Attorney General
of the United States wears two hats. He is the chief law enforcement
officer of the United States and, at the same time, he is the chief po-
litical adviser to the administration, regardless of whatever adminis-
tration may be in power, whether it be a Demoeratic administration or
Republican administration. Do you believe that the Attornev General
should participate in partisan political activity such as the congres-
sional elections of 1974, or do you think he should stay in a bipartisan
stance such as that traditionally taken, let us SEF. by the Secretary of
State?
Mr. FORD. Certainly the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Defense should refrain from partisan political activity. The Attorney
General does not have quite the same responsibilities as the two previ-
ously mentioned, but I do believe that he should certainly be circum-
spect, because as the principal law enforcing officer of the Government