(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Presidential campaign activities of 1972, Senate resolution 60; Watergate and related activities"

p' PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972 

'-? SENATE RESOLUTION 60 



EXECUTIVE SESSION HEARINGS 



BEFORE THE 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 



OF THE 



UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 



WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 
Milk Fund Investigation 

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 20, 22, 25, 26, APRIL 2, 11, 26, 
MAY 21, 31, AND JUNE 13, 1974 

Book 17 




Printed for the use of the 
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 



FRAN-^iJ-" !M;-:-. h L /^W CE:JTER 

Concord, New Hampshire 03301 



DEPOSIT °^T 2 4 1975 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972 

SENATE RESOLUTION 60 



EXECUTIVE SESSION HEARINGS 



bp:fore the 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 



OF THE 



UNITED STATES SENATE 

NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 



WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 
Milk Fund Investigation 

WASHINGTON, D.C.. MARCH 20. 22, 25, 26, APRIL 2, 11, 26, 
MAY 21, 31, AND JUNE 13, 1974 

Book 17 




Printed for the use of the 
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
30-337 O WASHINGTON : 1974 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Offlce 
Wasliington, D.C. 20402 - Price $4.40 



SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 

(Established by S. Res. 60, 93d Congress, 1st Session) 



SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina, Chairman 
HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee, Vice Chairman 
HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut 

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico 

Samuel D-^sh, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

Fred D. Thompson, Minority Counsel 

RuFUS L. Edmisten, Deputy Chief Counsel 

Arthur S. Miller, Chief Consultant 

David M. Dorsen, Assistant Chief Counsel 

Terry F. Lenzner, Assistant Chief Counsel 

James Hamilton, Assistant Chief Counsel 

Carmine S. Belling, Chief Investigator 

Marc Lackritz, Assistant Counsel 

Ja.mes C. Moore, Assistant Counsel 

Ronald D. Rotunda, Assistant Counsel 

Barry Schochet, Assistant Counsel 
W. Dennis Summers, Assistant Counsel 

Alan S. Weitz, Assistaiit Counsel 

Robert F. Muse, Jr., Assistant Counsel 

R. Scott Armstronc, Investigator 

Donald G. Sander.s, Deputy Minority Counsel 

Howard S. Liebengood, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Michael J. Madigan, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Richard L. Schultz, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Robert Silverstein, Assistant Minority Counsel 

Carolyn M. Andrade, Administrative Assistant 

Carolyn E. Cohen, Office Manager 

Joan C. Cole, Secretary to the Minority 

[Executive session hearings released to the public after the filing 
of the final report of the Senate Select Committee.] 

(H) 



CONTENTS 



HEARING DAYS Page 

Wednesday, March 20, 1974 7535 

Friday, March 22, 1974 7577 

Monday, March 25, 1974 7625 

Tuesday, March 26, 1974 7679 

Tuesday, April 2, 1974 7693 

Thursday, April 11, 1974 7699 

Friday, April 26, 1974 7707 

Tuesday, May 21, 1974 7731 

Friday, May 31, 1974 7749 

Thursday, June 13, 1974 7805 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 

Wednesday, Mabch 20, 1974 

Nunn, Lee, former vice chairman for the Finance Committee To Re-Elect 

the President, accompanied by Wallace N. Duncan, counsel 7535 

Friday, March 22. 1974 

Kalmbach. Herbert W., former associate finance chairman for the Finance 
Committee To Re-Elect the President and personal attorney to the Presi- 
dent, accompanied by Edward P. Morgan, counsel 7577 

Monday, March 25, 1974 

Butterbrodt, John E., president of AMPI, accompanied by Thomas C. 

Green, counsel 7625 

Tuesday, March 26, 1974 

Harrison, Marion Edwyn, member of the former firm of Reeves & Harrison, 
which was retained by AMPI 7679 

Tuesday, April 2, 1974 

Johnson, Joseph P., former AMPI oflScial and chairman of the Mills for 
President Committee in 1972, accompanied by J. D. Williams and Eric 
Roiter, counsel 7695 

Thursday, April 11, 1974 

Chestnut, Jack, campaign manager for Senator Humphrey's Presidential 
campaign in 1972, accompanied by Douglas Thomson and John Cochrane, 
counsel 7700 

Friday, April 26, 1974 

Pepper, Gerald R., executive director of the Iowa Institute of Coopera- 
tion 7707 

Tuesday, May 21, 1974 

Hanman, Gary Edwin, senior vice president of Mid-America Dairymen, 

Inc., accompanied by Wayne Hoecker, counsel 7731 

(III) 



IV 

Friday, May 31, 1974 

Page 

Campbell, J. Phil, Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture- 7749 

Thursday, June 13, 1974 

Kalmbach, Herbert W., testimony resumed 7805 

EXHIBITS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Kalmbach Exhibits 

No. 1 — (7596) Memorandum from John Dean to DeMarco, Evans 
and Kalmbach, dated March 18, 1971, re draft 
charter 7623 

No. 2— (7615) Article in Washington Post of February 29, 1972, by 

Jack Anderson, regarding ITT antitrust case 7624 

No. 3— (7807) Kalmbach letter to Maurice Stans dated April 17, 

1969, re $100,000 contribution of Jack Mulcahy 7816 

No. 4 — (7807) Itinerary/agenda for meetings March 24, 25, 26, and 

27, 1971, of Mr. Kalmbach 7816 

BUTTEBBBODT EXHIBIT 

No. 1 — (7653) Letter from E. C. Heininger to Kenneth Parkinson, 
dated January 21, 1974, re $100,000 political contri- 
bution to the Committee To Re-Elect the Presi- 
dent 7674 

Select Committee subpena for Jack Chestnut 7704 

Peppeb Exhibits 

Xo. 1 — (7719) Letter written to the Governor of Iowa by Gerald R. 
Pepper, dated March 26, 1974, re co-ops being "used" 
in a cooperative rally in October 1971 7726 

No. 2 — (7719) Letter, with attachment, from Harry Oswald, repre- 
senting Arkansas Electric Cooperatives, Inc., to Roger 
Peterson, dated September 14, 1971, indicating sup- 
port of Congressman Mills 7727 

No. 3 — (7720) Letter from Gerald Pepper to REC managers, dated 
September 18, 1971, re "Kick-off — October is Coopera- 
tive Month." '. 7729 

No. 4 — (7722) Advertisement announcing Iowa Cooperative Month 
kick-off, which appeared in a number of newspapers 

in Iowa 7730 

Campbell Exhibits 

No. 1— (7749) Affidavit of J. Phil Campbell dated March 10, 1972 7791, 

No. 2 — (7757) Press release from Department of Agriculture of ex- / 

cerpts of a speech by Mr. Campbell at Pennsylvania 

State College, March 22, 1971 7801 

AFFIDAVITS 

Baroody, Joseph. June 25, 1974 7817 

Bell, Joe, January 21, 1974, with attachments 7821 

Bethke, Monroe, February 7, 1974, with attachments 7832 

Blanton. Paul E., undated, with attachments 7839 

Cohen, Sidney, January 25. 1974, with attachment.s 7847 

Dale, John W., January 29. 1974, with attachments 7881 

Elmore, John A.. June 27. 1974, with attachments 7891 

Goggans, .John, January 21, 1974, with attachments 7900 

Hamilton, W. A., January 28, 1974, with attachments 7913 

Hardin, Clifford M., March 7, 1972 7916 

Hart, Jane S.. March 14, 1974, with attachments 7920 

Johnson, Roger E.. January 25, 1974. with attachment 7936 

Jones, Kirby, February 13, 1974, with attachments 7938 

Kalmbach, Herbert W., .June 11, 1974. with attachments 7944 

Keema, Alexander W.. March 1, 1974, with attachments 7959 

Long, Joe R., April 8, 1974, with attachments 7969 

McLaren. Richard W.. December 19, 1973 7977 

Manuel, Eleanor, January 25, 1974, with attachment 7985 



Page 

Morgan, Ben E., March 1, 1974, with attachment 7988 

Parker, John, January 8, 1974 7990 

Pleasant, William D., January 25, 1974 7992 

Stetler, Manan M., February 7, 1974, with attachments 7994 

Wallace, Don, January 8, 1974 8001 

Weitz, Alan S.. February 27, 1974, with attachments 8002 

Wilson, Bruce B., January 23, 1974, with attachments 8012 

Zittle, John, February 4, 1974 8053 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Billing of $10,516.21 from Sharon, Pierson & Semmes to MPI for legal 

retainer, services, and disbursements, dated December 19, 1969 8055 

Check for $5,000 to "Cash," signed by W. DeVier Pierson, dated January 

26, 1970 8056 

Check for $5,000 to Bob Lilly, signed by James R. Jones, dated December 
23, 1969 ; check for $5,000 to Bob Lilly, signed by James R. Jones, dated 
May 5, 1970 8057 

Letter from Congressman James R. Jones to Senator Ervin, dated June 22, 

1974, re Jones' involvement with MPI/AMPI 8058 

Letter from Thomas A. Kennelly to David M. Dorsen, dated March 27, 1974, 

re Jones' billings to AMPI on December 19, 1969, and April 9, 1970 8061 

Billing of $6,890 to Bob Lilly of MPI from James R. Jones for professional 

services and expenses, dated December 19, 1969 8065 

MPI request for check form, invoice, and check of MPI for $6,980 to James 

R. Jones for legal services, dated December 19, 1969 8066 

Letter from James R. Jones to Robert Lilly dated April 9, 1970, with 

attached billing for $7,150 for professional services 8069 

AMPI invoice dated April 9, 1970, and AMPI check dated April 20, 1970, 

for $7,150 to James R. Jones for professional expenses 8071 

White House press release and white paper "The Milk Support Price Deci- 
sion," dated January 8, 1974 8073 

Photograph of President Nixon, Harold Nelson, and David Parr taken 

during their September 9, 1970 meeting 8093 

liist of documents identified by White House custodian of records in search 
of White House records pursuant to subpenas duces tecum in Nader 
v. Butz 8094 

U.S. Tariff Commission response to the Select Committee request for infor- 
mation on imports of certain dairy products in 1969 and 1970 8108 

White House memorandum from John Brown to "JC" with handwritten 

comment 8112 

USDA organization chart for the 1971 milk price support decision 8113 

U^SDA/ASCS memorandum from Kiester Adams, Deputy Director, Live- 
stock and Dairy Division, to Deputy Administrator of Commodity 
Operations, dated September 25, 1970, re dairy and wool program 
considerations 8114 

Memorandum from Carl Farrington, Deputy Administrator of USDA/ASCS 
Commodity Operations to the Administrator, dated January 7, 1971, re 
recommended dairy price support, 1971-72 marketing year, with esti- 
mates attached 8117 

Letter from Gary Hauman, Mid-America Dairymen. Inc., to William 

Beezley, dated March 16. 1971, re 1971 milk price supports 8127 

Memorandum from George Shultz to John Ehrlichman. dated March 4. 

1971, re telephone call from Wilbur Mills regarding milk price supports. 8128 

Check for $200 from L. E. Elrod for William Pleasant for "Services," 

dated March 19. 1971. with endorsement 8129 

Memorandum from John Dean to Frank DeMarco, Tom Evans, and Herb 
Kalmbach, dated March 18, 1971, with cc John N. Mitchell, re attached 
charter for committees Avorking for the President's renomination. with 
charter 8130 

White House letter from Dwight L. Chapin to Secretary Hardin dated 
February 25, 1971, re March 23, 10:30 a.m. milk producers meeting 
with the President 8135 

Memorandum from J. Phil Campbell. Under Secretary of Agriculture, to 
John Whitaker, Deputy Assistant to the President, dated March 22. 
1971, re enclosed opening statement and dairy fact sheet for March 
23 milk producers/President meeting 8136 



VI 

Letter from Gary Hanman. Mid- America Dairymen. Inc., to Carl Baumann, 

dated March 29. 1971. re March 25 price support decision and TAPE, P*** 
ADEPT, and SPACE role in the decision 8139 

Letter from William A. Powell, president of Mid- America Dairymen. Inc., 
to Mr. and Mrs. Floyd S. Spidle. dated June 7. 1971. re political action 
by dairymen and the March 2.5 milk price support decision 8141 

Select Committee chart of Senate and House 1971 milk price support bills- 8143 

S. 1277. 92d Congress 8147 

Select Committee chart of Presidential vetoes from January 1969 to 

March 1971 8149 

Letter from Gary Hanman, Mid-America Dairymen, Inc., to Marion 
Edwyn Harrison, dated April 19, 1971, re enclosed checks, cover letters, 
and receipts for ADEPT contributions 8150 

Letter from Judge Richard TV. McLaren to David M. Dorsen dated May 

10. 1974, re r..S. v. AMPI 8151 

Letter from Bob A. Lilly of AMPI to Jake Jacobsen dated August 26, 

1971. re IRS audit 8155 

Three paragraph document concerning IRS audit of MPI relating to "Xo 

Retreat From Tomorrow'" 8157 

Memorandum from Robert O. Isham to George Mehren dated April 4, 

1972, re attached Isham to Mehren letter, April 4, 1972 ; and attached 
April 20. 1972. Isham to Monroe Bethke letter, re Isham resignation 
from AMPI 8158 

CRP memorandum dated August 7. 1972. entitled "Agri-Business" and re- 
ferring to "Milk Producers'" ^. 8164 

CRP memorandum from Clayton Teutter to Fred Malek dated September 

6, 1972, re Agricultural campaign materials 8167 

Page 121 from the "Rose Mary Woods Ust"' pertaining to the "Milk Pro- 
producers Association" 8168 

Check to Republican Congressional Campaign Committee for $140,000; 
check to Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee for $140.000 ; 
check to Congressional Boosters Club for .?50,000, all from Republican 
National Finance Committee and dated September 27. 1972 8169 

Two checks from the Republican Campaign Committee, each for S60.000 
and dated September 27. 1972, one to the Republican Congressional 
Campaign Committee and the other to the Republican Senatorial Cam- 
paign Committee, with endorsements 8170 

Two checks for the National Republican Senatorial Committee from the 
Republican Campaign Committee, each for $8,000 and dated October 
6. 1972. with endorsements 8171 

Two checks from the Republican National Associates Committee, each 
for $100,000 and dated October 9. 1972. one to National Republican 
Congressional Committee and the other to National Republican Sena- 
torial Committee, with endorsements . 8172 

Republican Campaign Committee check to the National Republican Sena- 
torial Committee for $23,500. dated November 1, 1972. with endorse- 
ment 8173 



PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972 
MILK FUND INVESTIGATION 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1974 

Ij.S. Senate, 
Select Com:mtttee ox 

PRESIDEXTIAIi CaMPAIGX AcTmTLES, 

'Washington, B.C. 

The Select Committee met. pursuant to notice, at 2 :10 p.m., in room 
1418, Dirksen Senate Office Building;. 

Present : Senator Talmadge. 

Also present: Da%'id M. Dorsen, assistant chief counsel: Alan S. 
Weitz, assistant majority counsel : and Donald Sandei-s. deputy minor- 
ity counsel. 

Senator Talmadge. Do you swear that the evidence you shall give 
the Select Committee on Presidential Campaitrii Activities of 1972 
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God ? 

Mr. Ntjxx. I do. 

Senator Talmadge. Thank you, sir. 

[Brief recess.] 

Mr. Weitz. TTell, I guess we can begin now. 

Just as a preliminai-y question. I wonder if you would get some 
background on the record, Mr. Xunn ? For the record, would you please 
state your full name and address? 

TESTIMONY OF LEE NUNN. ACCOMPANIED BY WALLACE L. 
DUNCAN. COUNSEL 

Mr. Nuxx. Lee Nunn. Route 1. Cave City, Ky. 

Mr. Weitz. And would your counsel please identify himself for 
the record ? 

Mr. Duxcax. Wallace L. Dmican : Duncan. Brown & Palmer. 1700 
Penns^'lvania Avenue, Washington. D.C. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Xunn. just by way of background. I understand 
you were director of the Senatorial Campaign Committee — the Repub- 
lican Senatorial Campaign Committee from 1968 until 1971? 

Mr. Nuxx. Yes: that is correct. ]Maybe it was a little earlier than 
that. I don't recall the exact dates. 

Mr. Weitz. I see. Did you also have responsibility during that 
period and earlier for national Republican annual dinners? 

Mr.NTTxx.Yes;Idid. 

Mr. Weitz. For what j^riod : do you recall ? 

Mr. ^iTTxx. Probably going back to 19fi7. 1 guess, through ^farch of 
1971. ISIarch of 1971 was the last dinner that I held for — including 
the dinners at the Republican National Conventions. 

(7535) 



7536 

Mr. Weitz. Now, did you leave the Senatorial Campaign Com- 
mittee in March of 1971 ? 

Mr. NuNN. At the end of March of 1971, yes; March 31, 1971, I 
guess was my last day. 

Mr. Weitz. And then at that time, or shortly thereafter, did you 
join the predecessor organization to the Finance Committee To Re- 
Elect the President ? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes, at sometime in April I became active in that. 

Mr. Weitz. Was that the earliest time you were connected with 
the reelection effort, the reelection campaign ? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. What was your position there ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, I eventually was vice chairman. I was named the 
vice chairman without my knowledge. It just suddenly appeared on 
the letterhead one day and that was that. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know when that 'first happened ? 

Mr. NuNN. That took place when Secretary Stans came into opera- 
tion — shortly after he arrived in 1972 that happened. 

Mr. Weitz. Prior to that you did not hold any specific title? 

Mr. NuNN. I held no specific title. I worked both politically and 
with the finances. 

Mr. Weitz. What were your responsibilities or areas of activities? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, in the beginning we set up a direct mail cam- 
paign to bring in funds to help sustain the small operation that was 
there. I worked on political matters in the 50 States due to my 
knowledge of the political people all around the country just keeping 
an ear to the ground as to delegates and potential opponents that 
might come up, and things of that nature; just general politics as 
well as finance. 

Mr. Weitz. How long did you serve as vice chairman of the 
committee ? 

Mr. NuNN. lentil the end of the conmiittee, I guess. 

Mr. Weitz. Who did you report to first before Secretary Stans 
came on, and then after? 

Mr. NuNN. To Attorney General Mitchell. Then Secretary Stans 
came in and I reported to Secretaiy Stans and to Attorney General 
Mitchell. Then also I reported to Clark MacGregor when he came in 
on matters that related to politics. I never was completely out of the 
political 'field. I did a little politics along with the fundraising at all 
times. 

Mr. Weitz. Did your position change in any way, either practically 
speaking or in title, after April of 1972 ? 

Mr. NuNN. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you reporting to or coordinating with the efforts 
of Mr. Kalmbach? Were you reporting to him or was he reporting 
to you? 

Mr. Ntjnk. No; there was some relationship. Kalmbach was on 
board when I came in, but he was outside most of the time. He was 
seldom in the office, but we did have discussions from time to time 
chiefly on fundraising; yes. 

No one ever told me that T Avas to report to anyone in particular. 
John Mitchell just said : 

Gro on over there. We are going to .set up an organization and I will be over 
very Shortly and we will get thing's going. 



7537 

Mr. Weitz. All right. Now I would like to turn your attention to 
1971 and ask you when, either at the senatorial campaign committee 
or after you joined the reelection effort, you first became aware of tlie 
milk producers and potential contributions by them ? 

Mr. NuNX. Well, the milk producers had contributed to our dinners. 
Xow, I can't recall the first one that they contributed to, but I do know 
they contributed subst antially to the March dinner. 

Mr. Weitz. Had they, to the best of your recollection, Mr. Nunn, 
contributed before 1971 ? 

Mr. NuNX. I believe they had. I can't say that for certain. You 
would have to check the records of the senatorial campaign committee. 
It was not large prior to that time if they had. 

Mr. Weitz. Either prior to 1971 or in connection with the 1971 con- 
tributions, did you deal with them directly ? 

Mr. NuNX. No, I never did get acquainted with the top people in 
the milk producers. 

You say "dealing with them directly," and at one time I was in the 
milk business, a farmer myself, and the milk producei*s deducted from 
my checks for their purposes. So I did have some knowledge that there 
was such an organization in existence at that time. And then as di- 
rector of the dinners, the people working for me were calling con- 
tributors from all over the United States and milk producers were on 
that list, of course. And they were contacted by the people working 
for me out there on those dinners. They were usually conducted from 
t he Washington Hilton Hotel . 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know how, in fact, the milk people were solicited 
for their contributions to the 1971 dinner? Was it through this tele- 
phone operation ? 

Mr. NuNX. Through this telephone operation ? Yes, we didn't have 
anyone out in the field vrorking. It was all done by telephone from 
here in Washington. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you discuss the possibility of contributions by the 
milk people with Marion Harrison ? 

Mr. Nuxx. Yes, Marion Harrison was the principal contact here 
in Washington for the milk producers at that time. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you know him prior to that ? 

Mr. Nuxx. No, 1 did not. I think the first time I met Marion Harri- 
son w^as when he delivered checks over there to the dinner committee 
or else he attended a dinner. I can't recall which, but it was on one of 
those occasions. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall when you were first told of the intention 
of the milk producers to contribute to the dinner ? 

Mr. Nuxx. Well, I cannot because we had a card system with about 
30,000 cards that we solicited and each day I would go through these 
as the telephone people would turn them in at night, and we would 
study the cards as to who had made commitments and we would try to 
follow up. All commitments didn't always come through so we had an 
intensive followup on those. And at some time now during that period, 
I am sure I must have noted from the cards that the milk producers 
intended to contribute. Also I may have had a call from someone, pos- 
sibly Harrison, but I just don't recall how that happened it has been 
so long ago. 

Mr. Weitz. With respect to reviewing those cards or otherwise, 
what was the amount of the commitment that the milk producers in- 
tended or had made — or intended to contribute? 



7538 

Mr. NuNN. I have no idea, because they were in the thousands. You 
see, those dinners at that time were running $2 or $3 million for a 
single dinner and there were a lot of contributors. Tlie records will 
show all of that, whatever it is. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, the records will show what they ultimately con- 
tributed. "What I am asking is if there is possibly any discrepancy 
between that and their commitment, and if so, if you were aware of 
Avhat that amount was ? 

Mr. NuNN. No, I am sure there was not. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you discuss the milk producers' pledge or contribu- 
tion to the dinner with anyone in the White House ? 

Mr. NuNN. I don't recall. I could have. I don't recall it because my 
contacts at that time were with the committees here on the Hill and 
with the Republican National Committee. They were the three that 
shared in the dinner. I don't think the White House had any part of 
that dinner. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any preexisting commitment by the Wliite 
House people to the Republican National Committee or to your com- 
mittee, "your" meaning the senatorial committee, at that time that Avas 
outstanding in either moneys that they had taken or moneys that they 
had been committed to raise for you ? 

Mr. NuNN. They hadn't taken any money from our committee or 
agreed to raise any money as far as our committee was concerned. 
Now the Republican National, I just don't Imow. Thei'e could have 
been because the Republican National Committee had a custom, and 
I presume they still do, of an amount set up in their budget to take 
care of White House expenses. But as to what that was, I did not 
know at that time. At a later date I did know. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, the Republican National Committee — is it not 
true that it or its aiRliate committees normally share in the proceeds 
of the dinners, they would share in the March of 1971 dinner and 
similar dinners? 

Mr. NuNN. The March of 1971 dinner they did. At one time it was 
Senate-House only and then I think we had just a Senate dinner and 
then we had the Republican National Committee coming into the pic- 
ture. At the 1968 or 1969, or somewhere in there at one dinner, the 
"Wliite House shared by way of the Republican National Committee to 
help defray some of the expenses of the inauguration and so forth. 
You know, the legislation had been enacted here setting up funds 
to change over the administration, but it was not adequate so the 
Republican National Committee made up the difference. I think some 
of that money came from the dinner operation. 

Mr. Weitz. So if there was some type of commitment or arrange- 
ment between the White House and the Republican National Commit- 
tee, at least in 1971, you were not necessarily aware of it? 

Mr. NuNN. No, I didn't know anything about it because at that time 
I hadn't the faintest idea I would be involved in the Presidential 
campaign. 

Mr. "Weitz. And I take it no one in any way discussed the connection 
between the milk producers' contribution to the dinner and any 
arrangements between the White House and the Republican National 
Committee for fundraising? 



7539 

Mr. NuNN. If they did, I don't recall it. They could have. They could 
very well have done so because there were all sorts of discussions on 
the dinner and everyone was interested in the dinner. We had asked 
people connected with the party, including the Wliite House, for 
anything they could do to assist in selling dinner tickets. So there 
could have been. I don't recall if there was. 

Mr. Weitz. Wlio would have told you that, if, in fact, you were 
informed of any such arrangement? Who were you in contact with 
who would have had that information ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, Murray Chotiner, I would imagine, because he 
was the man we had most of the contact with concerning the 1970 
campaigns. 

Mr. Weitz. In the White House ? 

Mr. NuNN. In the White House, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. How much was each ticket to the dinner? 

Mr. NuNN. $1,000. 

Mr. Weitz. And was there a set number of seats per table ? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes, 10 per table ; that is $10,000 per table. 

Mr. Weitz. If the 'W^ite House had wanted to get credit for the 
milk producers' contribution to the dinner from the Republican Na- 
tional Committee, that is, credit from the Republican National Com- 
mittee, would that again have been something that could have taken 
place between the White House and the Republican National Com- 
mittee without you people knowing about it ? 

Mr. NuNN. Oh, yes, without our knowledge. We wouldn't have 
known anything about that. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall how much was contributed by the milk 
producers, the three dairy co-ops, or their political trust to the dinner? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, I tried to reconstruct some of it and I think some- 
where around $60,000 or more ; $60,000 sort of sticks in my head, but 
there again they would have it over at the Senatorial Campaign Com- 
mittee. It is on the records. 

Mr. Duncan. This is the March of 1971 ? 

Mr. Weitz. Right. 

Mr. NuNN. Wliatever their records are, I mean. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, I would like to read for you and ask you, with 
respect to the following nine committees, which of these committees, 
because these are committees that received funds from the milk 
producers in the period of March, April, and May of 1971, and I 
would ask you which received funds ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, at the March dinner in order to spread the money 
that they contributed — in order to do that, we used practically all 
of the committees that national had and the Congressional Campaign 
Committee had, too, in order to spread the money. 

Mr. Weitz. So that if a contribution was made, not directly to a 
dinner committee as such, but to the Republican National Commit- 
tee, it still might count against their share in the proceeds of the 
dinner ? 

Mr. NuNN. Oh, yes ; when the final settlement was made and when 
it was noted they had been advanced that much. 

Another thing that happened through a dinner occasionally, par- 
ticularly with the congressional side, they would need additional 
funds before the end of the dinner, before we could render an ac- 



7540 

counting, so we would make an advance of $50,000 or $100,000 or 
something of that kind, so that they could go ahead. 

There was interchange amongst the committees from time to time, 
on the basis of need, more than anything else. 

Mr. Weitz. Let me just read the names of the nine committees and 
at the end, assuming they probably all were used at the time — at the 
end ^ou can tell me if any were not used. 

First, Republican National Finance Committee; Republican Na- 
tional Candidates Conference; Republican National Committee; Re- 
publican National Associates ; Kick-Off 1972 Republican Dinner Com- 
mittee ; Republican National Finance Operations Committee ; Repub- 
lican Victory Committee; Republican Campaign Committee; Com- 
mittee for a Republican Congress ; finally. Republican Congressional 
Candidates Conference- 

Mr. NuNN. The one that doesn't ring a bell is that candidates 
conference. 

Mr. Weitz. The Republican National Candidates Conference? 

Mr. NuNN. But it could have been used. Probably they were all 
used. If the records show that, I would agree. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, the records do show the contribution. I am just 
asking for your best recollection of whether they were associated witli 
receiving moneys for the dinner ? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes, if the records show that, I am sure they are. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall any problem with any of the particular 
dairy trusts or the dairy people in the timing of their contribution; 
that is, not having the money available before the dinner and either 
Mr. Harrison or someone else advancing money for any tickets? 

Mr. NuNN. It could have happened. That very often happened 
that people would not have the money available and it would come 
in later and we would extend credit to them and so it could have oc- 
curred with the milk producers. I don't recall offhand. It seems to 
me there was something about that, but I have no recollection of it 
offhand. Again, the records would show because following the dinner 
there would be a sheet that would show those that were outstanding 
and had not made payment but had been extended credit. So it would 
show on those records. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know who kept the records ? 

Mr. Nttnn. Well, let's see. That may have been Lynda Clancy at 
that time. I'm not sure. No, I guess not. Maybe she came in later. 

Mr. Weitz. I think she may have told us she did. 

Mr. NuNN. She could have. She has custody of the records now and 
I presume she could tell you that. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you speak with, either at the dinner or before or 
after the dinner, any of the representatives of the daily co-ops, par- 
ticularly from your State of Kentucky ? 

Mr. NuNN. Not that I recall. The firet member of the dairy opera- 
tion that I met, I guess, and that I recall was not too long ago when 
I was having lunch — wlien you and I, Mr. Duncan, were having lunch 
over at the 

Mr. Duncan. The Lawyers' Club. 

Mr. NuNN. Yes; at the Lawyers' Club with a man — well, I don't 
recall the man's name but he was introduced as being with the Associ- 
ated Dairy in Louis\'ille, Ky. 

Mr. Weitz. I see, but I meant in 1971. 



7541 

Mr. NuNN. No, I had no contact with them. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall any solicitation sometime after the din- 
ner, say 4 to 6 weeks after the dinner, to the co-op or its trust in Ken- 
tucky in comiection with the dinner, some oversight of a contribution 
that hadn't been made but had been committed in connection with 
the dinner ? 

Mr. NuNN. No, I don't. If there had been anything of that nature, 
it would have been handled through Marion Harrison's oiSce. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall any dealings with Harrison in that 
regard ? 

Mr. NuNN. I don't recall, but there again, the records would show 
if there was an3i:hing. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have a conversation with Attorney General 
Mitchell in connection with your joining the Finance Committee To 
Re-Elect the President and, in fact, asked to join the committee? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, he called me and asked me if I would stop by his 
office. I don't recall when that was but again his records would show 
that because he had a record of all of his appointments. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it after the dinner ? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes, it was — well, I guess it was after April 1, if it was 
after I had resigned. Again, I don't recall but you would have that. 

But he did call me in and ask me what my intentions were and I told 
him that I had neglected my home and farming operations for a long 
time. He said that he would like for me to stay on in Washington for 
the duration of the President's campaign and asked me to think about 
it and see if I couldn't extend my stay up here and assist in the re- 
election campaign. He said that he expected to be the chairman and 
about the same type organization would probably be set up as had 
been set up in New York in the previous campaign. So I said, "Well, 
let me talk to my family," because I was commuting back and forth, 
you know. And I did talk to my family. And then at a later meeting 
I agreed that I would continue on in the Presidential campaign and 
do what I could to assist in the reelection efforts. 

Mr. Weitz. Either before joining the reelection campaign or shortly 
after coming on board, were you made aware of any outstanding 
pledge or commitment by the dairy producers for the reelection effort. ? 

Mr. NuNN. I was told that one of the immediate jobs was the money 
coming in from the dairy co-ops and the problem was to set up the 
committees to receive these funds. Now all of this was in process 
and Bob Bennett was setting up committees to receive fmids from the 
co-ops. And, yes, I was made aware of that and it was not going too 
well, not very rapidly. 

Mr. Weitz. "Wlio did you discuss that with, do you recall ? 

Mr. NuNx. Oh, probably Hugh Sloan, probably Herb Kalmbach. I 
don't recall specifically. They would have made me aware of that and 
particularly Hugh Sloan would have briefed me something about it. 
And then from time to time there were discussions with others I am 
sure because of the slowness with which this thing proceeded. And I 
never did quite understand the reasons for the effort to set this up in 
the manner in which it was being set up. 

Mr. Weitz. How many committees were either being or to be estab- 
lished in that connection ? 

Mr. NuNX. Well, as I recall it, it was a couple of hundred, maybe 250. 
It seems to me there was a figure of about a couple of hundred com- 
mittees we were going to need but 



7542 

Mr. Weitz. Now I'm talking about the milk producers. 

Mr. NuNN. Yes, but the immediate need was for 100 committees. 

Mr. Weitz. Then ultimately several hundred ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, I never did get beyond maybe 200 or 300 possibly. 
But, no, I never did go beyond that or hear any figure beyond a couple 
of 100 or maybe 250. 

Mr. Weitz. Wliat amount did you understand would be contributed 
to each committee and overall ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, to each committee, now that was another problem. 
The contribution was to be only $2,500 and we had such difficulty in 
setting up committees, and so I brought up the matter of "why not 
make it $5,000," which Avas the limit. I understood that their counsel 
would not go along with this. At a much later date I was told that the 
reason was that he was afraid that because there were so many com- 
mittees, that someone would make a mistake and make two contribu- 
tions of $5,000 in one committee and then they would be in trouble. 
So it was just set up for $2,500 each. 

Mr. Weitz. So that if there was a mistake, they would still be within 
the law? 

Mr. Ntjnn. Yes, and there was a great problem. Mr. Bennett was 
having great difficulty in trying to get together the people who would 
serve as treasurers and chairmen of these committees. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Mr. Kalmbach or Mr. Sloan or anyone else indicate 
what the total contribution would be ? 

Mr. NuNN. Not at that time ; not that I recall, no. 

Mr. Weitz, Why were separate committees being set up by Mr. 
Bennett for these contributions ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, the theory was that they wanted to keep these 
committees undercover without publicity as long as possible and that 
they felt the best way to do this apparently was to use bank personnel 
as treasurers and then people that were close party members as chair- 
men, but I never did have any confidence in their ability to keep them 
confidential because there were so many people involved in so many 
committees and of course it didn't stay confidential very long. And 
I couldn't see the need of it because milk producers were filing right 
over here to the Clerk of the House. It was a matter of public record. 

The only thing that Avas secret about it was that the press had dif- 
ficulty in getting a treasurer or a chairman to tell for whom they were 
acting. But I believe, anyway, they filed only treasurers' names as I 
recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. The milk producers ? 

Mr. Ntjnn. Yes. And the. treasurers being at the bank, why then, 
when they called the bank, no information. 

Mr. Weitz. So although it may not have been totally effective, there 
was some element of secrecy involved by using bank officials, I take it? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, yes. They felt it would not be good business to 
disclose immediately that these funds were coming in for the Presi- 
dential campaign, politically, because the later you postpone those 
things, the better. If you don't, you alert the opposition party that 
you are out there active, so then it activates them. They get moving 
much earlier too. 

Mr. Weitz, Did anyone ever discuss with you any other reasons 
for keeping these contributions, as you put it, "undercover," besides 
what you have already enumerated ? 



7543 

Mr. NuNN. No, there was very little discussion of anything of that 
nature with me. The discussion with me was: "Let's get these com- 
mittees formed and Harrison has some more money." And Harrison 
would call me occasionally and would say : "Look, if you will give me 
some committees' names, we can send some additional funds in." 

Now Bob Bennett was the man setting up the committees, but on 
the other hand they didn't want me to press Bob Bennett too hard 
because he was the son of a U.S. Senator, So the thing seemed to drag 
and so we just did the best we could in getting the committees set up. 
It was delayed and slow moving. 

Mr. Wefiz. I understand you said Marion Harrison would call you 
and say that he had money if you had the committees ? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes ; the committees, yes — that tlie money would be avail- 
able if we had the committees that the checks could be written to. 

Mr. Weftz. Now, was there any reason why it seemed to be a re- 
verse situation from the normal fundraising situation where a fund- 
raiser presses, or at least solicits, or at least approaches the contributor 
rather than the contributor actually seeking out the fundraiser and 
informing him that they are anxious to give as soon as the commit- 
tees are formed ? 

Did you have an understanding as to the relationships or the ar- 
rangements between Mr. Harrison and the Committee To Ee-Elect? 

Mr. NuNN. No, all I understood was that Mr. Harrison — ^that his 
office was the contact for the milk producers' contribution and if they 
wanted to make these contributions we should get together a hundred 
or a couple of hundred committees. But we needed 100 committees, 
and that was the immediate goal we had there. 

I couldn't understand the difficulty in getting them together. And 
then also Bennett was supposed to do this with his organization or 
himself. And it was slow and there was no pressure to be exerted on 
Bennett to get him upset in any way. There was no urgent need for 
money because funds were coming in from our little direct mail 
campaign that was underway at that time. 

Mr. Weftz. What was the money from the milk producers to be 
used for? 

Mr. NuNN. General campaign purposes as far as I was concerned. 
I didn't know. I had nothing to do with that end of it. My job was to 
try to get the committees established so the contributions could be 
made. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, didn't you have a discussion with Kalmbach and 
Sloan, either separately or together, in May of 1971, discussing what 
the best use of the moneys from the milk producers would be? 

Mr. NuNN. I could have, I could have. I don't recall. I mean, I could 
have very well done so. We had discussions from time to time because 
of the slowness with which these funds were coming in. The use of 
the money was just general campaign as far as I knew. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there first a suggestion that it would be used for 
the operating expenses of 1701 and then that suggestion was rejected? 

Mr. NuNN. It could very well have been, it could very well have 
been. I think my contention all along way that it could be sustained 
very easily by direct mail or direct contacts from the committee be- 
cause tliere were so few people there and the expenses were not heavy 
at that time. I don't recall. 



7544 

Mr. Weitz. We have a White House memorandum from Gordon 
Strachan to H. R. Haldeman in May of 1971 and there is reference to 
the fact that both you and Mr. Kalmbach opposed the use of the milk 
money for the ongoing expenses of the Citizens' Committee to Re- 
Elect. Is that consistent with your recollection ? 

Mr. NuNN. It could have been because the committees were being 
set up and it could very well have been. There was no reason to dis- 
turb the committee setup. It could ^^ery well have been. I don't recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Was one of the reasons for that view, if you had it, that 
the use of that money might increase the possibility of disclosure of 
those contributions? 

Mr. NuNN. I don't recall. It could have been. Let's see, well, they 
would have had to have transferred the money out of those committees 
to other committees. It could very well have been. I don't recall the 
details of the thinking behind it at that time. It has been so long ago. 

Mr. Weffz. Was there ever any discussion as to a special need or 
particular desire to maintain the secrecy of the milk money contri- 
butions as opposed to other large eontributions during 1971 ? 

Mr. NuNN. No; you see, I guess the reason for the milk producers' 
contribution, that is, hopefully, the keeping of that undercover for 
awhile, was because it was a fairly substantial amount early. All you 
are doing is activating the opposition when you disclose a substantial 
contribution early. 

Mr. Duncan. You are talking about the memorandum of May 21 
of 1971 from Gordon Strachan to Haldeman? 

Mr. Weitz. Right. It is already in there. I won't make an exhibit 
to this, partly because you can't identify it, Mr. Nunn, and partly 
because we already have had it admitted into the record. 

Mr. Duncan. He had never seen it. 

Mr. Weitz. At the time, yes. 

Mr. Duncan. And still hasn't, to my knowledge. 

Mr. Weitz. I see. Now, there is a reference in the memorandum to 
the effect that the milk money, if it were to be transferred into the 
committees holding Kalmbach-collected money, might contaminate 
them. It says "might contaminate them," and that is the language; 
of the memorandum. Can you explain what that means ? , " 

Mr. NuNN. Well, I guess the fear there was — you are increasing 
the amount of money in the accounts and the milk producers were 
filing, and the other people would not be filing up here. I think that 
would probably be it. You see, the milk producers' situation was 
peculiar in two respects : One, it was $2,500 when it could have been 
$5,000; and the other was they filed with the Clerk of the House. 

Mr. Weitz. So from their end they were reporting? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes; so they said, "We are reporting and there is no 
secrecy here and we are a trust and we have to report." That is what 
I understood from Harrison. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware in April-May of 1971 of 75 checks 
of $2,500 each that, in fact, were either prepared or delivered or ready 
for delivery but were not delivered or deposited because of the lack 
of readiness of the committees ? 

Mr. NuNN. Sure I was, because I was following through on that 
about that time. I would have* known about those, yes. 



7545 

Mr. Weitz. Let me ask you this. There is something; that puzzles 
me. Both the checks and the records of the dairy trust indicate that the 
first series of contributions to these multiple committees was made in 
July of 1971. Now in this May 21 memo, it refers to the fact that "76 
checks for $2,500 each have been transferred into Bennett-created 
committees." 

In other words, it is speaking in the past tense. And in fact, Mr. 
Nunn, the milk producers' records do indicate voided checks that were: 
drawn around that time to numerous committees in the amount of 
$2,500 each. 

My question is this: Do you have any knowledge as to why the 
memo speaks in terms of the past tense, that is, delivery of the checks, 
whereas according to the records of the milk producers, they were 
voided and weren't ultimately deposited — well, that subsequent checks 
were made out and were not deposited until 2 or 3 months later ? 

Mr. ISTuNx. Gee, I don't recall that. Of course I had nothing to do 
with the depositing of the checks. When I received the checks, I 
turned them over to the treasurer and that was the end of it as far 
as I was concerned. 

Mr. Weitz. So you don't know whether in May of 1971 checks were 
in fact delivered to the committees ? 

Mr. NuNN. Oh, I think that checks were delivered. I don't recall, I 
mean, I don't recall the dates. 

I do know this, that there was a long delay in getting these Bennett 
committees established. It was very frustrating. I think that it proba- 
bly created a bad impression as far as people over there were con- 
cerned with the management of the campaign, you know, that since 
there was so much delay it must be the fault of the personnel. But 
then we had this other problem that on the other hand you couldn't 
put any pressure on Bob Bennett. And so I don't recall the dates, but 
whatever the records would show should be correct on that. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you discuss this matter or any other matter in con- 
nection with these contributions with Murray Chotiner ? 

Mr. NiTXN. Oh, if Harrison was out of town, yes. Chotiner was in 
that Harrison firm up there. As I understood it, Harrison was the prin- 
cipal one but Chotiner was involved from time to time and I knew 
Murray Chotiner personally. Murray was the man we worked with 
in 1970 in the Senate races when John Tower was the chairman of 
the committee here. So naturally it would just be a normal thing for 
him and I to discuss it if Harrison was out of the city or unavailable. 

INIr. Weitz. Did Mr. Kalmbach ever express any other problems to 
you or any other reservations he had about the milk producers' con- 
tributions other than this delay in the committee's preparation and 
also in the $2,500 amounts? Is there anything else that he ever dis- 
cussed with you in that connection ? 

Mr. NuNN. I don't recall anything. He could very well have done so, 
but I don't recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he ever raise the problem of the lack of control or 
somehow about their being less control over these funds from the 
committee's viewpoint and more control of the donor's viewpoint 
than from other contributors ? 

Mr. Nuxx. Not that I recall, no. 



pt. 17 



7546 

Mr. Duncan, There is one thing that I want clarified there. I don't 
think the prior testimony shows he ever discussed with Mr. Kalnibach 
the problem of making the checks out for $2,500 as opposed to $5,000. 
I think your question presupposed that conversation took place. 

Mr. Weitz. Right. The question essentially should have read that 
other than these problems, which you were aware of and perhaps 
others were, did you ever discuss with Mr. Kalmbach any other prob- 
lems in connection with these contributions? I gather your answer 
was no ? 

Mr. Ntjnn. No, I don't recall any. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware of any overall pledge to the campaign, 
either overall pledge or some monthly pledge or pledge by a timetable 
by the milk producers to the reelection campaign ? 

Mr. NuNN. Not that I recall other than this 100 committees that we 
were to set up. Now, sometime down the line — well, as a matter of fact, 
it is fairly recently that I first read that famous letter that was writ- 
ten by the former Congressman from over there in Harrison's 
office 

Mr. Duncan. Pat Hillings? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes, Pat Hillings. But I don't recall hearing any figure 
at all. Of course I was always accustomed to hearing these boxcar 
figures dropped when I was here with the committee and, you know, 
in Washington you pay no attention to those until it is actually money 
in hand. We always had a policy at our dinner committee where, when 
some livewire that was doing the calling would come in and say "Well. 
I just sold 10 tables" or "Well, I just sold two tables," or whatever 
it was, and he would say "Write it up for me and put it on the record," 
and so forth. Well, we would just say, "Now, look, just don't count 
anything until the money is in hand." 

And so if I had heard of any figure, I would have paid attention to 
it. I did know that the milk producers were very substantial j^eople 
and could contribute substantially because they were deducting a lot of 
money. 

Mr. Weitz. From their members ? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, how much do you remember was received from 
the milk producers in 1971 ? T^t's limit ourselves for the moment to 
these committees. 

Mr. NuNN. I don't remember the figures at all except in a general 
Avay. It seems to me that there was $200,000 or $300,000 that finally 
came in there while I was active in the early stages. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you reporting your activities to anyone in the 
White House? 

Mr. NuNN. No; I would just take the checks and turn them over 
to Hugh Sloan or mavbe to Gordon Strachan. Gordon was sort of 
a runner between the White House and the committee over there and 
maybe in a conversation with him he would ask questions of me, or 
Sloan would or somebody else, you know, sort of needling me as to 
"What about getting some movement on this?" or "What about getting 
some movement on that?" 

Mr. Weitz. So he would ask about particular areas and not a general 
report? 

Mr. NuNN. No, I didn't make any general report to anyone over 
there. 



7547 

Mr. Weitz. In other words, you would answer his specific question ? 

Mr. NuNN. Oh, yes, sir ; why any question I would get over there, 
why of course you would answer it. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall any questions or conversations with 
Strachan about the milk producers' contributions ? 

Mr. NuNN. No, I don't recall any but I am sure there were conversa- 
tions concerning how it was coming along because it was the one that 
was being delayed and dragged out because of the problem of getting 
those committees together. 

Mr. Weitz. Was the Wliite House aware of this problem ? 

Mr. NuNN. Strachan, I assume, was, and I assumed that they were. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall reporting to Strachan in 1971 and — let's 
say September or the fall of 1971 — as to the amounts that had been 
received up to that time ? 

Mr. NuNN. I could very well have done so. I don't recall it offhand, 
but I very well could have done so. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall either calling him, discussing him, or 
otherwise becoming aware of the fact that a $90,000 commitment had 
been made by the milk producers ? 

Mr. NuNN. I don't recall any commitment. 

Mr. Weitz. Or representation of a $90,000 contribution ? 

Mr. NTJiSTN. No, I never made any commitment figure of that kind. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall in the course of any conversations with 
Mr. Strachan in 1971 his observations or discussion to the fact that 
whatever had been contributed by the milk producers, was below the 
amount — was below the goal figure for the amount that was expected 
of them? 

Mr. NuNN. I do not recall, but it could have happened; but I doubt 
it very much because Gordon Strachan did not speculate and did not 
give out any information at all. He did specifically, according to my 
view of it, what he was told to do and nothing else. There was just no 
information from Gordon Strachan. 

Mr. Weitz. What about anybody else like either Hugh Sloan or 
Herb Kalmbach? 

Mr. Ntjnn. Well, Hugh Sloan was our treasurer and of course 
Hugh and I might discuss it from time to time if there was some prob- 
lem. But about the only ^-NHiite House contact at that time over there 
was Gordon Strachan and I do not recall any of the other people being 
over. There was just not much activity. 

The chief interest was in delegates and things of that nature and 
whether someone was going to come out and oppose the President and 
that sort of thing. 

It was political more than f unclraising. There was no pressure in the 
fundraising field particularly and certainly not by comparison with 
that that was put on when Maurice Stans arrived on the scene. And I 
was advised that we did not want to make any special effort until or 
after the Republican National Finance Committee had their — well, I 
believe it was their November dinner of 1971. They had a November 
dinner and we were not to interfere with that. And hell, if we talked 
to very many people, why they would get upset about our interfering 
with their activities. They felt that they should get their budget out 
of the way before the Finance Committee To Re -Elect started their 
activities. 



7548 

Mr, Weitz. I think you mentioiipd some reference to a concern not 
so much with contributions but with positions of newspapers and other 
public issues. Did there come a time in the fall of 1971 when there was 
some adverse publicity in connection with the milk contributions? 
Mr. NuNN. Yes, there were some articles that appeared somewhere 
in the news and I cannot recall what State or where it was. It could 
have been — no, I do not think it was Washinp^ton. And I was never con- 
cerned about it at all. I could not see any problem with it. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, did not the articles in addition to Just stating 
the fact that there were substantial amounts coming in from a feAv 
sources relatively early in the campaign — were there not some sug- 
gestions in the articles which did cause concern, linking or suggest- 
ing that there was a link between those contributions and the milk 
price supports ? 

Mr. NuNX. Yes, I think so. At some point in time that came in and 
then, yes, there was reason for concern at that time. But all of that 
happened before I ever became involved with the committee. I did not 
even know I was coming there at the time of those price supports. 
Mr. Weitz. You mean the decision itself ? 
Mr. NuNN. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. I take it during March of 1971 — and just to backtrack 
for a moment, when you were running or preparing for the dinner, I 
take it that you had no knowledge of either any action in connection 
with those decisions or any active solicitation by Mr. Kalmbach or 
others of the milk producers ? 

Mr. NuNN. I had none whatsoever. I was so tied up in the dinner 
that that was all that was on my mind. ^Yliatever knowledge T might 
have had would have been something that was in the press. But, no, 
I did not know what was going on. 

Mr, Weitz. Now in the fall of 1971 after you were involved, and in 
connection with these articles and the investigation by newspapermen 
in preparation for these articles, did you discuss both the contributions 
and any other matters relating to them with anyone either in the 
"\'\niite House or other people connected with the committee? 

Mr. NuNN. I could have but I do not know who it would be in the 
^Vliite House. I probably did with Sloan and maybe with Kalmbach; 
and possibly could have had some discussion with John Dean because 
John was consulted on the setting up of the committees, the cliarter 
and so forth, and things of that nature. But as to the problems that 
would be with the White House, those involvements there, as to that, 
no ; our chief discussion was being sure that we were able to get these 
committees set up and that they were set up legally and that t;vpe of 
thing and just to maintain the confidentiality of funds coming in. 

Mr. Weitz. We have another memo and this is September of 1971 
from Gordon Strachan to H. R. Haldeman, and it discusses both the 
report, by you to Mr. Strachan on the amounts received up to that time, 
which was slightly over $200,000. but also it goes on to discuss the in- 
vestigation by a reporter from the Minneapolis Star in connection 
with an article relating to the milk fund. Now in the course of the 
memo Mr. Strachan says that "Bennet has told Nunn that no damag- 
ing information has been released." 

Now, did he discuss with you what information be considered dam- 
aging that either was or was not released ? 



7549 

Mr. XuNx. Well, the release of the names of the treasurers would 
have been — well, I do not mean the treasurers, of the chairmen — was 
always considered to be somewhat of a problem because the only infor- 
mation that the press had at that time was the treasurers' names, as I 
recall it, that were filed over there. I do not believe the milk producers 
filed the chairmen but I do not recall anything- specific about that. 

Mr. Weitz. AYell, do you recall in September of 1971 meeting or dis- 
cussing this matter with — and I know you said with Mr. Dean or Mr. 
Kalmbach, perhaps, and Mr. Sloan^ — but do you also remember dis- 
cussing it with Tom Evans ? 

Mr. NuNN. Tom Evans of New York ? 

Mr. Weitz. I believe so. 

Mr. NuNN. Could have. He was with a New York law firm and he 
came down there and was eventually deputy chairman for a while. 
Could very well have been so, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. He was a partner in Mr. Mitchell's and the President's 
law firm, was he not ? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes, and I met Tom earlier and knew him, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember a meeting together with Mr. Kalm- 
bach, Mr. Dean, and Mr. Evans to discuss the possible articles and any 
matters in connection with the milk contributions ? 

Mr. NiTNN. Could very well have been. I do not recall the specific 
meeting, but there could have been because they were considerably dis- 
turbed over the publicity concerning the milk producers as to what 
damage it might cause the Presidential campaign. 

Mr. Weitz. Let me go back. Do you recall any specifics about that 
meeting or in connection with discussing the matter with these people 
and do you recall any particular views or recommendations that were 
made, anything particularly that was said ? 

Mr. NuxN. I do not recall any, no. I do not think there was anything 
that could be said or any action taken particularly. I do not recall. 

I know at some point there the press began to telephone concerning 
the funds. They were trying to uncover who these committees were act- 
ing for. And at that time of course they were acting for the milk pro- 
ducere' committees. We had no funds and the Committee To Ee-Elect 
had none at that time, as I understood from Mr. Sloan. I do not know 
at what point in time these transfers ever took place. 

Mr. Weitz. But they were ultimately acting for the reelection cam- 
paign ; wei'e they not? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes. 

Mr. Duncan. I am sorry but I want to clarify one thing. I think 1 
heard you say in enumerating the participants in that conference, I 
think you said that Mr. Mitchell was there ? 

Mr. Weitz. No. If I did, it was incorrect. I said Mr. Kalmbach, Mr. 
Dean, and Mr. Evans. 

Mr. NiTNN. I never did see John Mitchell on the second floor, which 
was the finance operation during the entire campaign. 

Mr. Weitz. Did this meeting take place in the reelection head- 
quarters ? 

Mr. NuNN. I would think so. I would think so, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you ever meet in Dean's office ? 

Mr. NuNN. I met in Mr. Dean's office and with Mr. Dean and Mr. 
Sloan. I discussed the charters in his office at one time on those 
committees. 



7550 

Mr. Weitz. All right. 

Mr. NuNN. I think that maybe Dean either prepared or checked the 
charters for the committees. 

Mr. Weftz. Were there other large contributions either from similar 
or related sources or from any one source, during that period of time 
in 19Y1 ? 

Mr. Nfnn. Oh, there were a few. It seems to me in 1971 we got a 
part of the Claude Wild contribution and I guess the C. V. ^^Tiitney 
contribution came in — a ad that was ultimately returned and then a 
part of it rereturned early — and then the Phillips Petroleum — well, I 
do not remember. That could have been in 1971 or a part of it but I 
cannot recall how much. There were probably others. 

There was no great active effort going forth at that time, but there 
were others. I am sure there were others, but whatever the records 
show. 

Mr. Weitz. Let the record show that Mr. Sanders has just come in. 

Off the record. 

[Discussion held off the record.] 

Mr. Weitz. Back on the record. 

My question is this, Mr. Nunn. There were, as you indicate, other 
contributions and although we will return to it later, Mr. Whitney's 
contribution also was about $205,000 I think the record will show? 

Mr. Nunn. Eight. 

Mr. Weitz. So therefore there were other contributions in 1971 of 
the magnitude of the milk producers' contribution ? 

Mr. Nunn. No, the onlv one would be the Whitney contribution, 
which was $205,000. The Phillips Petroleum and Claude Wild would 
be somewhere in the range — well, I think Claude Wild's contribution 
was $50,000, the first one. I think the Phillips' contribution would be 
somewhere around $50,000 or $75,000 or somewhere in there. There 
could be others that would be — oh, there could have been some at 
the $10,000 or $15,000. I do not recall any other large ones but there 
could very well have been. It was so long ago that you just do not 
recall it, but whatever the records show. 

Mr. Weitz. Was not there a list in fact of different classes of con- 
tributors projected like one from to 100 and then one from 100 and 
above, meaning $100,000 ? 

Mr, Nunn. I do not know. I never had access to those lists. All lists 
and things like that were prepared by Hugh Sloan and I never had a 
list of that nature in my possession other than by States for the 
purpose of dealing with the State finance chairmen at later dates. 

But it seems to me that somewhere down the line a list, probably 
after Secretary Stans came in, was prepared. But those records were 
not available to me. 

Mr. Weitz. In the May 21 memo that we referred to, the Strachan 
memo, on page 2 he actually says : "Kalmbach and Nunn argue that 
the money being collected by Nunn through the direct mail solicitation 
and the 0-100 contributors should cover citizens' expenses." 

Now were you then aware of people, Avhether or not you saw the 
whole list, of people who were considered to be targets of either to 
$100,000 contributors? 

Mr. Nunn. Those were the ones I just mentioned that were the to 
$100,000 contributors. 



7551 

Mr. Weitz. Similarly were you not awa^-e, whether or not you saw 
the whole list, that there were contributors with goal figures that had 
been established by someone in the fundraising effort with figures 
above $100,000? 

Mr. NuNN. No, I cannot say that. At that time we were not setting 
goals. That came about after Secretary Stans came into the picture. 
There may have been other lists but not that were available to me. 

]Mr. Weitz. Well, the ^ery fact of people being targetted in the to 
100 grouping, now if there was no one above $100,000, the grouping 
would be somewhat needless. Was there not, in fact, a grouping of 
people beyond the $100,000 that were being handled by Mr. Kalmbach 
and others? 

Mr. NuNN. There probably was but not that I had any knowledge 
of. We had not gotten organized to that extent at that time. Later on 
we were highly organized and we had all sorts of areas but not at 
that time. 

Mr. Weitz. My point is this. Now let us return again to the milk 
producers' situation, even though they had given close to a quarter of 
a million dollai-s by September of 1971, by the end of September of 
1971, did anyone express any other concern in connection with these 
news articles other than the fact that they were large contributoi-s ? 
In other words, did anyone relate it back to tlie milk price-support 
decision ? 

Mr. NuNN. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Weitz. During the 1972 campaign or at the outset, was there 
a concern expressed by anyone in the White House about fundi-aising 
being centralized through various sources so as not to permit various 
people with connections to the same contributors all to solicit them 
at the same time ? 

Mr. NuNN. I do not recall any. There was always a problem amongst 
the committees on that score but generally everyone went ahead and 
solicited and did not Avorry about duplication of effort or overlapping. 

Mr. Weitz. What about'solicitation for nonreelection efforts, strictly 
for citizens' expenses, other tlian that — in other words. White House 
people or others for their own special projects ? 

Ml-. NuNN. There was no solicitation as far as we were concerned for 
anything except the reelection effort. 

Mr. Weitz. In fact, did you not receive a memorandum fix)m Mr. 
Haldeman specifically requesting or prohibiting, rather, solicitation 
for purposes other than the reelection effort by the authorized and 
organized reelection fundraising effort? 

Mr. NuNN. I do not recall any such memorandum. Mr. Sloan may 
have received one or someone else, but we never solicited funds except 
for one purpose and that was for the reelection campaign, which 
included the Senate and the House and the party and so forth. 

Mr, Weitz. Right, were you aware, however, of fundraising efforts 
by others for other purposes ? 

Mr. NuNN. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Other political purposes, I mean. 

Mr. NuNN. At a later date, yes; I have read reports and so forth 
where there was solicitation for other purposes, but not at that time. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know Avhether Charles Colson engaged in any 
such independent solicitation for purposes other than the strictly 
speaking reelection effort that you were involved in? 



7552 

Mr. NuNN. I do not specifically know of any. We sometimes would 
suspect that people were getting involved in the areas that they 
sliould not be in, but I never had any proof that they were. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have an understanding or become aware some- 
time in 1971 of a separate — shall we say a separate agreement or 
arrangement between Mr. Colson and the milk producers for funds? 

Mr. NuNN. Not that I recall, no. As far as I knew, all milk producers 
were coming in by way of Marion Harrison's office to us. 

Mr. Weitz. To your committees ? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes. Now there could have been some funds coming in 
to Kalmbach that I would not have known anything about perhaps, 
but all I knew about was what was coming to us. 

Mr. Weitz. And you do not recall discussing this matter or reporting 
this either to Hugh Sloan or to Gordon Strachan ? 

Mr, NuNN. I could have discussed it with Hugh. We were always 
concerned that someone would set themselves up as a solicitor for the 
committee and would be getting funds and using them for their own 
personal use. That was a concern even when I vas here with the 
committee. So you constantly guard against that sort of thing. Yes, 
so that could have been discussed. 

Mr. Weitz. I am not talking now in terms of mishandling of books 
for personal use but rather solicitation for other political purposes 
rather than, strictly speaking, the operation at the citizens' com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. NuNN. I do not recall any. I do not recall. There could have 
been. The whole thing is a little bit hazy at this point in time. It 
has been a long, long time. 

Mr. Weitz. That is all right. Let me read to you something that may 
refresh youi recollection in that connection. In the same memo in Sep- 
tember from Strachan to Haldeman he makes the following statement : 
"It is Nunn and Sloan's opinion that Colson has established a separate 
agreement with the milk people in order to have cash available." 

Does that refresh your recollection of any such arrangement that 
you became aware of or discussed with either Sloan or Strachan ? 

Mr. Nunn. We could have been suspicious of Colson. Colson was 
quite an operator at the T\niite House. I do not remember. It does not 
ring any bell. I could have discussed it with him. 

Mr. Weitz. I take it you do not remember? 

Mr. Nunn. I do not recall it, no. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you ever discuss the matter with Murray Chotiner 
or Marion Harrison ? 

Mr. Nunn. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you ever discuss some separate agreement or sepa- 
rate fimd? 

Mr. Nunn. Not that I can recall, no. 

Mr. Duncan. That memo was the September 11 memo ? 

Mr. Weitz. Yes. Did there come a time in 1971, when the milk con- 
tributions slowed or terminated or stopped because of some reason ? 

Mr. Nunn. Well, they stopped. And as to why, I do not know other 
than the publicity that was being given in the press to it, but the pres- 
sure from Strachan concerning committees and so forth just suddenly 
stopped and the thing just sort of collapsed there at one point in time 
and then Stans moved in and we began to move in other directions. 



7553 

And I did not concern myself with milk producers much after Sep- 
tember or October, as far as I recall now, until very late in the 
campaign. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it your understanding that moneys that were sup- 
posed to be contributed or that they intended to contribute were not in 
fact contributed in 1971 ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, other than if we expected to use a couple of hun- 
dred committees, like 200 or 300 committees, then I do not think we 
would use as large a number of committees for milk producer funds 
as someone thought we were going to. But, no, I do not recall any dis- 
cussion of any specific amounts or anything like that. 

Mr. Weitz. But in fact, for example, if someone is asked to contrib- 
ute $100,000 and contributes $100,000, 1 suppose normally your percep- 
tion of it would not be that the contribution had stopped ? Your per- 
ception would be that rather, in fact, it was made. 

My question here is : Is there any distinction between that situation 
and the milk producers' situation where the expectation on someone's 
part is greater than the amount contributed ? 

Mr. NuNN. I do not recall. There was no definite expectation, as 
fas as I was concerned, on the milk producers because no one had ever 
made any commitment to me and I did not know anyone connected 
with the milk producers at that time, that is the official group that 
they were dealing with. My contact was Marion Harrison. And the 
funds stopped coming in really. And I think Kalmbach may have 
been interested in that to a greater extent than I at that time. 

Mr. Weitz. Was he still involved all through 1971, or did you more 
or less take over from him at a certain point ? 

Mr. NuNN. When he took a trip abroad, he at that time asked me to 
follow up on the committees and getting the funds in, which I did. 
I continued to maintain my contact with Marion Harrison. At some 
point in time it seems to me Harrison was relieved as counsel for the 
milk producers and some other arrangement was made. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember the name of Jake Jacobsen? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you associate him in late 1971 or early 1972 with the 
milk producers' situation ? 

Mr. NuNN. I tell you this. I met Jake Jacobsen at the time that 
Secretary Connally set up the Democrats for Nixon. 

Mr. Weitz. That would have been later in 1972 ? 

Mr. NuNX. I do not remember when it was. Whatever that date, 
that Avas when I met Jake Jacobsen shortly after that setup was 
underway. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, you testified that at some point in late 1971 the 
milk producers' contributions stopped. 

Mr. NuNX. No ; I say in 1971, but there could have been some going 
over into 1972. My miemory is hazy, but whatever the records show. 
But they stopped at some point in time and nothing was done, 
nothing happened over a long period of time. Then I made a trip late 
in the campaign out to San Antonio to try to get milk producers' 
funds again, 

Mr. Weitz. Well, we will get back to that in a minute but we are 
still in this earlier period. 



7554 

Do you recall at any point where Mr. Kalmbach was in touch with 
someone else, either you or Mr. Kalmbach was in touch with some- 
one else in lieu of Marion Harrison, like perhaps after he was relieved 
as counsel to the milk producers ? 

Mr. NuNN. I do not recall. Of course that would not necessarily 
have been conveyed to me because my area was getting in the funds, 
establishing the committees. 

Mr. Weitz. Are you aware of any contacts or meetings between Mr. 
Kalmbach and the milk producers in 1972 ? 

Mr. NuNN. I am aware of them now. I cannot say that I was at 
that time because I do not recall although I could have been from 
press reports and so forth. I am aware he was in contact with them 
from that, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Have you talked to Mr. Kalmbach about them ? 

Mr. NuNN. I have not talked to Mr. Kalmbach since — well, since 
I left the campaign over here as far as I can recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you discuss the dairy situation with Mr. Mitchell 
in 19— well, in the first half of 1972 ? 

Mr. NuNN. Gee, I do not recall because John Mitchell was never 
interested in the finance end of it. It could have been, but I have no 
recollection of it. 

Mr. Weitz. Wliat about with Mr. Stans when he came on board, 
what about either before or after he came on board? 

Mr. NuNX. I recall discussing it or mentioning it to Mr. Stans 
shortly before my trip to San Antonio. T could have talked about it 
earlier, but I have no recollection of it. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware of an investigation vmderway by the 
Justice Department into the possible antitrust violations by the milk 
producers in late 1971 or early 1972 ? 

Mr. Nttnn. I read the press reports on it. I was aware of it, yes. 

Mr. Weit;?;. At that time ? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes; whatever was in the papers. Now, no one ever 
discussed it with me that I can recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any discussion in late 1971 or in 1972 about 
any possible relationship, either adverse or positive or negative, 
between contributions or solicitations for contributions by the milk 
producers and the investigation and subsequent civil antitrust suit 
by the Justice Department ? 
" Mr. NuNN. I do not recall. There could have very well have been. 

Mr. Weitz. Was not that a concern in fact, or was that a subject of 
concern ? 

Mr. NuNN. You mean the antitrust suit ? 

Mr. Weitz. The antitrust suit and the past contributions and the 
ongoing solicitations ? 

Mr. NiTNX. Could have been, but not that I recall. I have no rec- 
ollection. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Mr. Kalmbach ever inform you as to the reason — 
well, ever explain to you why the contributions stopped? 

Mr. Nttnn. I do not recall. He could have, but I do not recall. I 
guess it could have been just as soon as the contributions would stop 
with the antitrust and so forth, when that would get going, but T do 
not recall any advice or conversations concerning it. 



7555 

Mr. Weitz. Aside from Mr. Kalmbach, did you have any knowl- 
edge from wliatcA-er source at the time, that is during 1971 and the 
first half of 1972, of the reason that the contributions stopped ? 
Mr. NuNX. No ; not that I recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, I believe in the early interview with us, if my 
notes are correct, that j^ou indicated that there possibly was some 
discussion with Mr. Stans before April 7 of the dairy contributions, 
of the dairy situation. 

Mr. Ntjnn. Before April 7 ? 
Mr. Weitz. Before April 7, 1972. 

Mr. NuNN. There could have been, could have been. I cannot recall 
just what the discussion was other than the fact that they had con- 
tributed. But I do know that before going* to San Antonio that I 
did mention it probably at a meeting. 

Mr. Weitz. Right, I am still trying to stick up to the first half of 197Q 
for a moment. 

Mr. NuNN. No; I do not recall any discussion with Stans, but I 
say there could very well have been because when Stans came in, 
he did review everything that had been going on and laid his own 
plans. I guess it could have come up, that all of the contributors, that 
everyone that had made a contribution probably would have been 
discussed with Stans or he would have discussed it certainly with 
Sloan and probably with me as to the ones I had knowledge of. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any attempt to solicit or receive another 
single or series of substantial contributions from the dairy coopera- 
tives or their trusts just prior to April 7 ? 

Mr. NuNN. Not that I know anything about. Now there could 
very well have been, but I did not make any solicitation of those 
people at all. 

Mr Weitz. Was Mr. Kalmbach still in touch with them at that 
point ? 

Mr. Ntjnn. I do not know. 
Mr. Weitz. That is prior to April 7 ? 
Mr. NuNN. I do not know. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any discussion that you were aware of that 
indicated that there were such contacts or solicitations prior to April 
7? 

Mr. NuNN. Not at that time. I just know from what I have read 
in the papers since then that he was in contact. 

Mr. Weitz. Now between April 7 and the time when you planned 
and in fact did go out to San Antonio in October 1972, were you 
aware of any further contacts between the dairy people and the 
reelection campaign ? 

Mr. NuNN. No; I was not. I was so busy during this period with 

my 50 State finance chairmen that I just did not know veiy much 

about anything going on in those areas during that period of time. 

Mr. Weitz. How did you come to arrange for and meet with Dr. 

George Mehren ? 

Mr. Ntjnn. Dr. Greorge Mehren ? 
Mr. Weitz. That was in October of 1972. 

Mr. NuNN. Well, following the convention Secretary Stans became 
very concerned that we were not going to get together the funds that 
were necessary for the campaign. The so-called November Group 
that was doing the advertising and television and so forth out in 



7556 

New York had rather grandiose plans. And as we progressed and 
moved along following the convention, funds tightened up again and it 
seemed the general public assumed that the President was going to 
be reelected and he did not need the money and we had plenty of 
money or at least there were a lot of stories out to that effect. And 
so we got into October and Secretary Stans estimated that we would 
be about $10 million short, of the funds that were needed for the 
campaign, based on what the November Group was going to do and 
other expenses. 

So he reviewed with the entire staff the situation and asked every- 
one to review all prior contacts, any new contacts, an3i:hing where we 
could come up with some additional funds. 

And I guess, but I do not recall the eiact words of what was said, 
but I guess I suggested that we should contact the milk producers again 
because they are very substantial people. And apparently there were 
no objections to this. And I said "Wlien I am home and since I am 
part way there, I will go on over to San Antonio and see what can be 
done." 

And so I talked to Mr. Jacobsen and asked him if he would set up an 
appointment with Dr. Mehren. I did not know Dr. Mehren, but I did 
know that he was a member of the opposition party and he had been an 
assistant secretary, I believe under President Johnson. So Mr. Jacob- 
sen said that he would be glad to do so and he called me back and said 
that I had the appointment. It was on a. Saturday morning. 

And I flew from Tx)uisville I belie\^ 

Mr. Weitz. Let me stop you there and we will just take it one piece 
at a time. 

Mr. NuNN. OK. 

Mr. Weitz. Wliy did you suggest the milk producers ? I take it that 
nothing had happened with them for months and months and you had 
not been involved ? 

Mr. NuNx. Nothing had happened for months and months and, of 
course, the first thing that you do when you are looking for political 
money, you find out where the money is located. 

Mr. Weitz. Did anyone indicate that they had made a commit- 
ment or had represented that they could contribute far more than they, 
in fact, had already contributed ? 

Mr. NuNN. Not to me they had not. There probably had been some 
prior publicity at that time on what they were going to do. I do not 
recall when that came into being. 

But you see, living down in Kentucky and being a farmer and seeing 
those beautiful shiny trucks going by every morning and the deduc- 
tions coming off of those farmer's trucks, it is just a falbulous opera- 
tion. These people can gather funds together in a hurry and it is just 
a logical place you can go for money. There is no reason why you 
should not — it did not seem to me at that point in time that we should 
overlook the milk producere. It was a possibility. 

Mr. Weitz. Who was present at this meeting when the matter was 
suggested and you made the suggestion ? 

Mr. NuNN". I have not any idea. It could have been at a morning 
meeting, just going around the table. You see, Stans had a morning 
meeting every morning and would take each individual's comments to 
see what he had in mind. At that time I probably said "Why don't we 



7557 

check on the milk producers and I will be glad to go out and talk to 
them." I do not even recall, but I would imagine it was at that time. 

Stans was very busy and so in order to get to see him we would 
usually bring our notes in for the morning meeting. I cannot say for 
sure that was it. 

Mr. Weitz. And in connection with that meeting, there was no dis- 
cussion after you made your suggestion, of what amounts you should 
request from them or how much they had pledged or represented and 
had not contributed ? 

Mr. NuNN. No; and I do not think that I requested any specific 
amount when I was out there either. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, in your earlier interview with us — and again it 
might have been an error in our notes — but I believe you indicated 
that you had asked Marion Harrison to set up a meeting through Jake 
Jacobsen. I take it your best recollection now is that Mr. Harrison 
was not involved in arranging this meeting in October ? 

Mr. NuNN. I think maybe I said I might have discussed it with 
Marion Harrison, I think probably Marion Harrison was the individ- 
ual that gave me a rundown on George Mehren and that he was a 
former member of the Johnson administration. Maybe he could have 
suggested that Jacobsen would be a better man than he. 

Mr. Weitz. But you contacted Jacobsen ? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes ; I did ; and I had a very dim recollection of that too 
until I read in someone's notes — and I guess it was George Mehren^s 
testimony — that Jacobsen had called him. That sort of confirmed it 
in my mind. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, you were in touch with Jacobsen, were you not, 
off and on in connection with Democrats for Nixon efforts? 

Mr. NuNN. Occasionally, but not very often. 

Mr. Weitz. Did not he at various times talk to you or urge another 
solicitation to the milk producers ? 

Mr. NuNN. No ; he never did urge it and did not predict one way or 
the other. All he did say was that "I will set up the appointment." 

Mr. Weitz. Did he accompany you to San Antonio ? 

Mr. NuNN. No, no. 

Mr. Weitz. You went alone and met with Dr. Mehren ? 

Mr. NuNN. I went alone. 

Mr. Weitz. This was on October 21 of 1972 ? 

Mr. NuNN. That is what the records show and my expense reports 
are not available to me so I will accept that date. Yes, it was very late. 

Mr. Weitz. The only purpose for your trip to San Antonio was to 
meet with Dr. Mehren ? 

Mr. NuNN. To meet with Dr. Mehren ; yes. 

Mr. Weitz. As you had indicated before, there is a milk producing 
co-op in Kentucky ? 

Mr. NuNN. That is right. 

Mr. Weitz. Where you live ? 

Mr. NuNN. Eight. 

Mr. Wettz. Why did not you go and meet with them ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, because I knew the group in San Antonio sort of 
controlled what the others did. They generally followed San Antonio. 
If San Antonio suggested a contribution, why the others usually 
would go along. And also I did not know anyone in the Louisville 
co-op either. I suppose if I had known someone personally, I would 
have gone there. 



7558 

Mr. Weitz. You had not met Dr. Mehren before this time either? 

Mr. NuNN. No ; I had not. 

]\Ir. Weitz. Could you tell us to the best of your recollection — and 
I would like you to ^ve us as much detail as possible — what was said, 
what transpired at that meeting with Dr. Mehren ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well now, for me to tell you what I said and what he 
said would be an impossibility. I can tell you in general, based on the 
usual solicitation, because that too has been quite a while ago. 

There are several things I do recall about it. I know it was on a 
Saturday morning and I went out Friday night and stayed overnight 
in San Antonio and I got over to Dr. Mehren's office and there was 
just he there. The place seemed to be closed down. It was in a sub- 
urban area I know, and he and I talked alone for some little time. It 
ended up they delivered me to the airport to get my plane back. 

My solicitation of Dr. Mehren was the usual one. I may have shown 
him the telegram that Secretary Stans had sent to our State chair- 
men. We used that as one of our lead-ins. So that was to the effect 
that we expected to be about $10 million short in funds and I might 
have said that I came out with the thought that maybe they could give 
us some additional help and that we were very grateful for what they 
had done, and just to see what they could do for us. 

And I know Dr. Mehren told me that they would not make any 
further contributions to the Presidential campaign, and he said that 
also goes for Senator McGovem's campaign. 

Mr. Weitz. Let me stop you just for a moment on that and let us 
go off the record. 

[Discussion held off the record.] 

Mr. Weitz. Let the record show that Da^nd Dorsen is present. 

I suppose from what you have said, Mr. Nunn, that before you 
did go to San Antonio you found out how much they had contributed ? 

Mr. NuNx. I guess that I did. I do not recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Or just as a general matter, you knew? 

Mr. NuNN", In general, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you mention any specific figures to Dr. Mehren ? 

Mr. NuNx. I do not recall that I did. I could very well have done so, 
but again, as I say, I do not recall what I said and what he said. I do 
not believe that I did. 

Dr. Mehren said that I did not in one place and then he says in an- 
other testimony that I did. So he is not a very reliable source as to 
whether I did or not. 

But I do not recall mentioning any specific figure. I do not think 
he let me get that far along. He cut me off pretty short on this thing 
of no further contributions to either of the Presidential campaigns. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you make any specific requests or ask for it more 
specifically than the Presidential campaign for the President, than 
the reelection campaign for the President, that is, some vehicle such 
as Democrats for Nixon or the finance committee ? 

Mr. NuNX. I do not recall that I did. I think that Dr. Mehren pretty 
much took over and began to explain to me some of his problems. One 
thing that I do recall and I was impressed by the fact that he had 50 
farmers as directors. He was telling me how difficult it was to deal 
with farmers and I said, "Now, you are talking to a farmer." 



7559 

And when he was so adamant and so flat-out on that no contribu- 
tions to Presidential campaigns, then I put on my other hat and began 
to solicit for the Senate and the House Members. 

And I think, as you recall when I was in here the last time, why I 
mentioned the same subject that we had a list of incumbent Senators 
and incumbent Congressmen and nonincumbent candidates of both 
Houses that were always available. So that where we were turned 
down on a Presidential contribution, we would endeavor to get money 
for the candidates most in need. And so from time to time I would 
check with Buehl Berentson and whoever was in charge over on the 
House side, as to which candidates seemed to be most in need of money. 
And we were constantly in effort on behalf of Senate and House 
candidates. 

Mr. Weitz. Specific candidates who were in need? 

Mr. NuNN. Specific candidates. We even did this in some instances 
where they were making — the man was making a contribution to the 
committee but he was also solicited for the House and Senate. This is 
part of Secretary Stans' operation and, as part of that, we asked our 
State finance chairmen and others to do the same. 

Mr. WErrz. Now, you had gone to San Antonio, however, I take it 
for one reason and that was to try to make up this debt ? 

Mr. NuNN. Make up the debt that we had, that is right. 

Mr. Weitz. And that was a deficit pursuit at least by Secretary 
Stans for the President's reelection campaign ? 

Mr. NuNN. That is right. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, when you made this solicitation on behalf of the 
congressional committees or this recommendation, now do you remem- 
ber exactly what you said or how you put it ? 

Mr. Ntjnn. I do not recall exactly. I remember what I generally 
said. I generally talk about the candidates that were in need of funds, 
how important it was for President Nixon to have a Republican Con- 
gress. We stressed this all along. We stressed it was a very important 
part of our operation. We felt that the polls indicated that the Presi- 
dent was going to win big and that we should be able, with somewhat 
of a landslide vote, we should be able to bring in a Republican Con- 
gress, but we wanted to insure this and there were many of the can- 
didates that still needed funds. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you in any way indicate to Dr. Mehren that at 
least some of the money that might be contributed by his organization 
to the congressional committees, if they were committees rather than 
particular candidates, would go for the President? 

Mr. NuNN. No, no. 

Mr. Weitz. Or for his reelection ? 

Mr. NuNN. I probably said to Dr. Mehren, as we did for everyone 
that didn't want to contribute to Richard Nixon for one reason or an- 
other, that we can go over the list of candidates and the contributions 
to these candidates will be tremendously helpful to us because one of 
our goals also is to gain a Republican Congress. And we were very 
pleased, we were almost as well pleased to get a contribution for the 
Senate and House candidates as we were for the committee itself. 

I do recall one other thing about the solicitation for the Senate and 
the House candidates. The first name that I had on the list and one 
that I thought would maybe appeal to Dr. Mehren was Senator John 



7560 

Tower. And of course Senator Tower is a good friend of mine and I 
think an awful lot of him. And George Mehren almost went through 
the ceiling. He didn't want to make any to him. He would never do 
anything to help him. 

I continued down the list of the incumbents and then I went to the 
nonincumbents, and he would maybe have some remark or statement 
like, you know, "this fellow hasn't been particularly helpful to us." 

Mr. Weitz. He wasn't in unanimous accord with the people you 
supported ? 

Mr. NuNN. No, he wasn't, and I didn't expect him to be because he 
was a member of the opposition party and also had been in the John- 
son administration. 

Mr. Weitz. Is there anything else about the meeting that you can 
recall ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, the result of the meeting was that he told me that 
he either had or he was considering recommending to his board that 
they make a contribution to the Senate and to the House committees. 
I don't know whether he told me at that time that it was going to be 
$150,000 to each, or whether I got a call telling me that. Again he 
could recall, and our records should show it, but it seems to me he 
probably told me at that time, that he was going to make a r'^commen- 
dation to his board that this be done. 

Mr. Weftz. That is that $150,000 be contributed to each of the two 
committees ? 

Mr. NuNN. To each of the two committees, yes. And I told him 
this would be greatly appreciated and I hoped that he was successful 
in getting this done. Then he told me something about the Johnson 
ranch and a trip that he was taking down there. I don't know whether 
he was going to see Pr-esident Johnson or not, but he asked me what 
time my plane was going out and I told Ixim and he said : "Well, I'm 
going that way and I will be glad to drive you to the airport" wliich he 
did. 

Mr. Weitz. Now you had mentioned, you had testified that a number 
of both incumbents up for reelection and nonincumbents whom you 
favored and you indicated that Dr. Mehren 

Ml-. NuNN. No, not that I favored, that the committee on the Hill. 

Mr. Weitz. Yes, that they needed f imds. 

Can you explain then why Dr. Mehren either told you then or there- 
after that they would contribute substantial funds to the committee 
for it to distribute to anyone it wanted, including candidates such as 
Senator Tower, whom Dr. Mehren quite explicitly indicated he did not 
support ? 

Mr. NuNN. I don't think we got into any discussions as to why he 
would contribute to the committee. 

The list that I had of individual candidates that needed fmids was 
quite long. Now I don't recall. There could have been some discussion 
as to some candidates — well, I do recall John Tower and he did not 
want Tower to receive any funds. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have any discussion or do you know Avhy he 
didn't take down the list and contribute to the candidates that he did 
favor ? 

Mr. NuNN. No, I do not. I don't think he knew much about the Re- 
publican candidates because of his being a member of the opposition 
party. 



7561 

Mr. Weitz. Of course he indicated that he wasn't the only one re- 
sponsible, I suppose, but wasn't there some discussion about the use- 
fuhiess, either at that meeting or shortly after, if he called you 
to notify you of the contribution, wasn't there some discussion of the 
usefulness of the money for the President ? 

Mr. NuNX. No, other than that any funds that would be contributed 
to the Republican Party, to any candidate who was running for elec- 
tion or reelection on the Republican ticket would automatically be 
helpful to the Pi-esidential campaign. 

Mr. Weitz. In the Congress but not for the reelection of the Presi- 
dent himself? 

Mr. NuNN. Oh, it would be helpful to the President's re-election for 
any Congressman or Senator to have recei\'Bd a campaign contribu- 
tion, and particularly that late in the campaign, because that late 
in the campaign, the odds were that that money would be used for 
election day expenses. The hauler that is going to bring in that voter 
for the Senator or the Congressman that is running on the Repub- 
lican ticket, well the odds are that he is a Nixon voter, too. So funds 
coming to Republican Senators and Congressmen at that stage of the 
campaign would be tremendously lielpf ul to Nixon. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he indicate the way it could be used for the media 
for the President ? 

Mr. NuNN. I probably mentioned to him that one of our problems 
was media money, this almost $10 miillion that Stans had wired to all 
of our State finance chairmen that we had to have was because of 
this November Group in New York, which had a grandiose plan for 
a lot of late television and so forth. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any discussion of how this money contributed 
to the committees might go to cover some of those expenses? 

Mr. NuN?v". None of tliose, no. no, no. I don't think we got into any 
discussion, particularly as to how Congressmen and Senators might 
use it other than on election day. That is usually what happens to late 
money that is coming in. I have been in many campaigns and you get 
down close to the end and you find that, well, for election day expenses 
we haven't got any money because we spent it all on TV and other 
things. 

Mr. Weitz. I believe you know Bob Odell. of course ? 

Mr. NuNx. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Weitz. What was his position ? 

Mr. NuNx. Well, Bob Odell was the director of the Republican Na- 
tional Finance Committee. He also assisted and worked with our com- 
mittee and coordinated with the committee down there. 

You see, following the convention at this period we are talking 
about, Secretary Stans was chairman of Bob Odell's committee as 
well as chairman of the committee that I was working for. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Odell, I take it he is fairly well experienced in 
political cami>aigns ? 

Mr. Nuxx. He should be. Well, in finance, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Especially from the finance side ? 

Mr. NuNX. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, Mr. Odell has testified before the committee, in 
his opinion, that money as late as this in the campaign could not have 
been used judiciously for a particular Senator's campaign. Can you 
reconcile his opinion with yours ? 



30-337 O - 74 - pt, 17 - 3 



7562 

Mr. NuNN. Well, Mr. Odell is speaking as a finance man who never 
ran a campaign in his life and knows nothing about the political side 
of it. Any campaign operator will tell you that those last few days 
of getting together on election day expenses for the organizations go- 
ing out there to bring out your vote is tremendously important, and 
you are always scratching around at the last minute trying to get 
those funds together. 

Money coming in that late may be difficult to use in the field of the 
media, yes, because you can't put together the television programs. 
You can get together election night activities maybe, though. 

Anyway, it is tremendously useful. 

Mr. Weitz. How soon after the October 21 meeting with Dr. Meh- 
ren did you inform the committees of the contributions ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, when I returned, I met with Secretary Stans and 
told him that my mission had been unsuccessful as far as the Finance 
Committee To Re-Elect was concerned, but I did feel that I had been 
successful as far as the committees on the Hill were concerned and I 
said, "of course, that you never count it until it actually arrives." 
I didn't bring any funds with me. 

And he said, "Well, that is fine." He said, "Contact the two commit- 
tees and see if they can't make some repayment on the loans that we 
have advanced." 

Mr. Weitz. Wliat loans were those ? 

Mr. NuNN. At the time of the Republican National Convention in 
Miami Beach, Secretary Stans declined — now this is as chairman of 
the Republican National Committee — declined to take a fair share of 
the funds from the dinner that was held down there and he gave it to 
the two Hill committees, and that was first. 

Then at later dates he had advanced additional funds to the sena- 
torial committee and to the House committee with the understanding 
that, if at a later date they came into funds, that they would "repay all 
or part of these advances. This was sort of customary in transferring 
funds back and forth and I guess Secretary Stans assumed that, if 
they received these checks, they should be in a position to repay some 
of the funds that he had advanced. 

Mr. Weitz. I take it that the heads of those committees, the con- 
gressional committees, were aware, of course, at the time of the trans- 
fers and so forth, that they would be expected to repay, if possible? 

Mr. Nltnn. Oh, yes. This is more or less an implied understanding 
on those things that if you do get into a position to repay, you do. 
Yery often in campaigns you come into late moneys and that makes 
that thing possible. 

Mr. Weitz. And I take it also, that when the transfers that we are 
going to discuss subsequent to the milk money coming in were made, 
that it was discussed that these were in fact repayments or in response 
to those earlier transfers as repayments of loans ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, that was pretty ob\nous. I don't recall the words 
of what I said and what he said but, as I recall it, I talked to Senator 
Dominick and to Bob Wilson. That would be the normal thing to do. 
They were the chairmen of those two committees. 

I was hopeful that the funds would come in from San Antonio. And 
I negotiated with them what they thought they could do toward a 
partial repayment on the indebtedness. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, what did they decide ? 



7563 

Did you talk with both Dominick and Wilson ? 

Mr. NuNN. I'm not positive about Wilson. I think that I did. I think 
that I talked to Dominick, too. There was so much going on and the 
pressures at that time in the campaign are almost unbelievable when 
you are sitting there with hmidreds of telephone calls coming in and 
50 States that you are worndng about, but I am sure I would have 
talked to the chairmen of the committees. 

Mr. Weitz. When Secretary Stans made this observ^ation that the 
moneys could be used to repay the loans, didn't you tell them that the 
milk producers had specifically not wanted to contribute to the Presi- 
dent's campaign ? 

Mr. NuNN. I probably did and they didn't contribute to it. That had 
210 relation to the contribution to the President's campaign. That was 
not a contribution to the President's campaign. 

Mr. Weitz. ISTow, if, as we will discuss later, the only way that those 
moneys could be transferred to the reelection campaign was the avail- 
ability of the money from the milk producei^ and that was the con- 
tingency upon which you talked with Senator Dominick and Repre- 
sentative Wilson, wouldn't in fact that money then become the source 
of the repayment to the finance committee ? 

Mr. N'tjnn. Not necessarily. They deposited those moneys in their 
own accounts. 

Mr. Weitz. You mean they didn't endorse them over to the finance 
committee ? 

Mr. N'uNN. They certainly didn't. If we had wanted that money for 
the finance committee, what I would have said to those gentlemen, I 
would have said : "We would like to have this money transferred to us" 
and I would have asked for the entire amount. There was no splitting 
up of the milk moneys at all. What we were doing was getting some re- 
payment on the indebtedness. 

Now, as to how much the indebtedness was, or what the total repay- 
ment was, I don't know, because I did not get into those figures. I did 
not have access to those figures. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, how did you know the $150,000 to each committee 
was sufficient? 

Mr. NuNN. Was sufficient ? 

Mr. Weitz. To cover the loans. 

Mr. NuNN. I didn't know that it was sufficient to cover the loans. 
I don't know whether it did cover the loans. I don't think it was. I 
think the loans were much greater than that and I doubt they were 
ever covered. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know why the loans weren't reported in any of 
the reports of any of the committees during that period ? 

In other words, the reports in that period don't reflect any loans or 
transfers between the committees. 

Mr. NuNN. I don't know. I didn't know that. No, that was out of my 
area. I had nothing to do with that. 

Mr. Weitz. What was decided with Dominick and Wilson ? 

Mr. NuNN. I don't recall, but apparently from my efforts to recon- 
struct the thing and talking with the personnel of the two commit- 
tees, I called the two committee staff members and told them that I 
had talked with their respective chairmen and I asked them to make 
out checks for whatever the amounts of the checks were and to send 
them to the Republican National Committee. 



7564 

Mr. Weitz. Who did you talk with at each committee? Do you 
recall that ? 

Mr. NuNN. I talked to Lynda Clancy I know over at the Senate 
committee and I prcybably talked to Ed Terrar at the Eepublican 
Congressional Campaign Committee. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know when you first notified them? 

Mr. NuNN. Oh, right after I returned from San Antonio. 

Mr. Weitz. Let's see, the 21st was a Saturday ? 

Mr. NuNN. It must have been probably a Monday or Tuesday. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, if Lynda Clancy recalls that you called either on 
the 26th or the 27th, but probably the 26th, is that consistent with your 
recollection ? 

Mr. NuNN. I have no recollection of it whatsoever except that I re- 
call calling her sometime right after the return. I called everyone 
shortly thereafter. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember what you told Lynda Clancy? 

Mr. NuNN. No, I probably told her the amount of the check to 
draw and send to the Republican National Committee. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you tell her that the milk money was coming in and 
that out of that money she was to draw the checks ? 

Mr. NuNN. No, not out of that, no. I probably told her the milk 
money was coming in and when it arrived, to deposit it into the 
accounts. 

Mr. Weitz. And you also told her what ? 

Mr. NuNX. I probably told her I had discussed this with Senator 
Dominick and over on the other side with Jidb Wilson and that this 

3uld make it possible for a repayment to our committees, and that we 
had agreed on whatever x number of dollars was involved there, and 
to write out the checks and send them over. I don't recall what I 
said and what they said. But Lynda has the figures and so does the 
House committee. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you discuss with Miss Clancy how much of the 
money from the milk producers was going to be kept by the committee, 
by the senatorial committee ? 

Mr. NuxN. Not that I recall. T may have. Miss Clancy could have 
said something about what this was going to do to their bank account 
or anything of that nature. I don't recall. 

Mr. Weitz. I take it you are not saying that you did not tell her a 
certain amount would be kept by the conniiittee. but rather you don't 
recall ? 

Mr. NuNN. I don't recall I talked about the amount she was to send 
to the Republican National Committee. As to the exact amount, I 
don't recall, but I know that I would have told her that, and I would 
have told Ed Terrar, if he is the man I talked to or whoever I talked to, 
because this would have been the normal thing to do. 

Mr. Weitz. But just to make it clear, you are not saying you did not 
tell her a certain amount would be retained by the senatorial commit- 
tee from the contribution but that rather vou do not recall telling her 
that? 

Mr. NuNX. T don't recall telling her that. She may have said this 
does thus and so to our bank account or something like that. It may 
have come up in discussion. I can't recall. It has been a long time. 

INIr. Weitz. Did you have a similar con\ersation with Mr. Ed Terrar 
or someone on the congressional side ? 



7565 

Mr. NuNN. Terrar, I would think, yes. Ed Terrar would probably 
be it, because I think he was working in that same capacity over on 
the House side at that time. I don't believe he is there any longer. 

]\Ir. Weitz. Let me get this straight. Who was the money supposed 
to be transferred to from the two committees, from the congressional 
and the senatorial committees ? 

Mr. NuNN. The Republican National Finance Committee. You see, 
Stans was chairman of the Republican National Finance Committ-ee 
also. He was acting in two capacities at that time. And his advance to 
these two committees had been made from the Republican National 
Finance Committee, I believe. Again, I don't know. I don't have rec- 
ords or access to that and I know nothing about the Republican Na- 
tional Finance Committee's affairs since the 1971 budget meeting, 
which I think was the last one that I attended. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you talk ^vith Bob Odell about these transactions? 

Mr. NuNN. Oh, probably so. Bob Odell was sort of a right arm down 
there. He worked with me at the committee and he was the director of 
the Republican National Finance Committee. The Republican Na- 
tional Finance Committee supplied the list usually that was used for 
solicitation. They handled the computer operation. Bob Odell had a 
big telephone operation going. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember what you told him about the moneys 
he would be receiving ? 

Mr. NuNN. I don't recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you give him any instructions as to what he was 
supposed to do with the money ? 

Mr. NuNX. I don't recall, I don't recall. That probably would have 
been Secretary Stans' area because Secretary Stans was chairman of 
that committee and I was not a member of the Republican National 
Finance Committee. 

Mr. Weitz. Therefore, if either you or Mr. Stans issued instructions 
to Mr. Odell about the transfer of moneys to the finance committee 
from the moneys received from the two congressional committees, it 
was not you but rather Mr. Stans ? 

Mr. NuNN. Probably. I don't know why Odell would take any in- 
structions from me on transferring the funds. These people were work- 
ing for someone else. Odell would take his instructions from Stans, 
who was chairman of the committee and certainly not from me. I wasn't 
even a member of the Republican National Finance Committee. 

I could have discussed it with him for some reason. I don't know why. 

Mr, Weitz. Well, you had discussed it with Secretary Stans, I take it, 
when you returned from San Antonio and he in fact had told you to 
get in touch with the congressional committees and perhaps see if they 
could repay the money. Therefore, in dealing with them, you were not 
members of those committees either but you were acting under Secre- 
tary Stans' direction ? 

Mr. NuNX. That is right and I dealt with the chairmen, as I recall 
it of those committees because I don't think that Miss Clancy and Ed 
Terrar would take instructions from me, although they could because 
it was a repayment of indebtedness that was on the books and was due. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember what instructions you gave to Lynda 
Clancy and, for example, the senatorial committee as to what dates and 
what amounts to issue ? 



7566 

Mr. NuNN. I don't remember it at all. I wanted to be sure that it was 
not construed as a division of milk money. I do know that. 

When the checks came in, they deposited the checks in the usual 
manner and then they made the payment on the indebtedness. 

Mr. Weitz. Wliy Avere you concerned that it wouldn't be construed 
that way ? 

Mr. NuNN. Because it was not that way. That is all. 

Mr. Duncan. I'm not sure he understood that question. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you read back the last question ? 

[Whereupon, the reporter read back the previous question and 
answer.] 

Mr. Weitz. Do you want any further elucidation of my question? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. You said that you asked her to deposit the money and 
make certain disbursements in a way that it would not be construed 

Mr. NuNN. No, not in a way. I told her specifically, I am sure, to 
make a check out to the Republican National Committee and the date 
because it was not in any sense of the w'ord a "division" of milk money. 
It was a repayment of the indebtedness that the two committees had 
incurred by accepting the loans from Secretary Stans. 

In other words, I was carrying out Secretary Stans' instructions. 

Mr. Weitz. And his instructions were based on the fact that, if the 
milk money did come in, the funds generated from that could be used 
to repay the loans ? 

Mr. NuNN. No, not the funds. But this should make it possible — well, 
to see if this would make it possible for the two committees to make 
repayments. 

Mr. Weitz. Right, and without that contribution he would not have 
given you that direction ; is that right ? 

Mr. Ntjnn. That is right. This was a rather unexpected contribution 
that we knew they were receiving or should receive late in the cam- 
paign and w^e had reasons to believe that this would swell their bank 
accounts to the point where it would be possible for them to make some 
repayment. Now, if these gentlemen had said it doesn't make it possible, 
or our bank accounts are in the red, that would have been something 
else. But they were able to make these repayments. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, Mr. Nunn, you said that when you went out to see 
Dr. Mehren, you made it clear that if he was not interested in contribut- 
ing to the Presidential compaign, that there were numerous Senators — 
and you gave him a list or listed a number of people 

Mr. Nunn. Now, let's don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say it in 
those words. 

When we finished our discussion and I had a flat turn-down on the 
Presidential compaign, then I said to Dr. Mehren — and this was the 
usual procedure — "You know, it is very, very important that we carry 
a Republican House and Senate and we have many of those candidates 
that need help." And then I had a list which I produced. In fact, I 
have that list with me because it was the same one that I brought in here 
the last time that you people would not discuss or talk about it. 

Then I proceeded to discuss that list or a part of it with Dr. Mehren, 
and I completely got away from the Presidential compaign. I was 
dealing only with the Senate and the House candidates and their need 
for money. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you tell me how those Senators and Congressmen 
or candidates for those positions benefited from the milk contributions ? 



7567 

Mr. NuNX. Well, I don't know. That was up to the people up here 
and however they distributed it, and however they handled the money. 
I don't know whether they gave it to nonincumbents or what. 

Mr. Weitz. What I am askings you is this. In light of Secretary 
Stans' direction to see whether — if 1 am paraphrasing this correctly — 
whether the committees would have money to repay the loans previ- 
ously made to them, in light of this direction, in light of your discus- 
sions with Senator Dominick and Representative Wilson, in light of 
the subsequent transfers from the senatorial and congressional com- 
mittees to the Republican Finance Committee, could you tell us how 
the milk money contributions in October of 1972, made to the Senato- 
rial and Congressional Finance Committees, ultimately benefited Sen- 
ators and Congressmen or candidates for those positions? 

Mr. NuNisr. I don't knoAv. I don't know Avhat the committees did with 
the funds they had on hand. The milk money made it swell their ac- 
counts to where we thought it would be possible for them to make some 
repayments to us. Now, they might have had a lot of other funds on 
hand. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, if they had, what need would they have for t e 
funds which would form the basis of your solicitation of Dr. Mehre: . ? 

In other words, you said to him that these people needed money, and 
you asked him to contribute. 

Mr. NuNN. That is right. They gave me a list of candidates tjif't 
needed money and both of the committees contributed directly to 
candidates. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Secretary Stans or either Representative Yfilson 
or Senator Dominick indicate that they couldn't give you the money 
because they needed money for Senator Tower and others ? 

Mr. Ntjnn. No. I don't recall the words, but I do know that in ^-he 
discussion of a repayment on the indebtedness, that we arrived ai a 
figure and I talked to Lynda Clancy and Ed Terrar evidently, and that 
was it. 

INIr. Weitz. Did you call Dr. Mehren over the phone afterward* 
and tell him his contributions had swelled the bank accounts of these 
committees to the point where they could repay loans ? 

Mr. NuNN. I don't think I ever talked to Dr. Mehren again after 
this, no. 

Mr. Duncan. May I inquire? Do you intend to put the actual 
amounts transferred from these committees to the Republican Na- 
tional Committee and the amounts transferred from the Republican 
National Committee to the Finance Committee To Re-Elect in the 
record because the line of your questioning implies that all of ihe 
money that was received by the House and Senate committees ^ as 
eventually transferred to the Republican National Committee and 
eventually to the Finance Committee To Re-Elect and that is not the 
case. 

Mr. Weitz. I would be happy to enter it into the record. I think the 
record shows the following — if you will take my word for it based on 
the available records • 

Mr. NuNN. Yes ; whatever the records show. I don't remember. 

Mr. Weitz. I believe the record shows that on October 30, the sena- 
torial committee transferred $65,000 to the Republican National Fi- 
nance Committee. 

Let's go off the record until I get the records. 



7568 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Weitz. Back on the record. 

As I started to say, on October 30, $65,000 went from the senatorial 
committee to the Republican Campaign Committee and the following 
week, that is, October 7 or rather November 7, $55,000 was transferred 
from the senatorial committee to the campaign committee. Another 
transfer is indicated, although it may not be related. And I believe our 
records do not show it is related, but there was another one on Novem- 
ber 20 of $2,000. That would be a total of $120,000 plus $2,000 from the 
senatorial committee to the Republican Campaign Committee. 

On November 1, the congressional committee transferred $95,000 to 
the campaign committee. The following week on November 7, $6,000 
was transferred. 

Mr. Duncan. Are you sure that is related ? 

Mr. Weitz. No ; I am not sure that is related. On November 7, the 
date of two of the transfers, the Republican National Committee trans- 
ferred $100,000 to the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President. 
The following week on November 13, the Republican Campaign Com- 
mittee transferred $100,000 to tlie Finance Committee To Re-Elect 
the President. 

Let me also say that our record is complete. I take it obviously that 
at each executive session, not all facts are brought out, but that all of 
these facts are complete and I think it is useful to state in this record 
that our record is complete as to all of the transfers. 

Mr. Duncan. I don't think the record here reflects what the total 
contribution was from the milk producers' committees to the Senate 
and the congressional committees. Did you say it was $800,000 ? 

Mr. Weitz. On October 27, 1972, or at least as of that date, checks 
on those dates for $150,000 each were made out to the Senatorial Cam- 
paign Committee, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, 
and the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. 

Mr. Duncan. Do your records show those funds were commingled 
with the funds of those two committees? 

Mr. Weitz. I believe so. 

Mr. Duncan. So that there was a substantial amount of money even 
after the payments were made by the Senate and congressional com- 
mittees to the Republican Campaign Committee that remained in the 
Senate and the House ? 

Mr. Weitz. Right, and there is testimony as to the genesis for that 
arrangement. 

Mr. NuNN. Well, did someone else make contributions? At least 
when I was at the committee, contributions were always coming in in 
some amounts. Didn't other people, were not they making contributions 
to those committees about the same time, too ? 

Mr. Weitz. Did you solicit any other contributions that you can 
recall at that time ? 

Mr. NuNN. Oh, I solicited — well, not specifically, I can't mention 
one specifically. But as I said, tliroughout the entire campaign, and 
going all of the way back to the very beginning, we solicited funds for 
the Senate and for the House. That was a part of our operation. This 
was all of the way through the campaign and I did that more so myself 
than anyone else because, having come from the Hill and knowing 
the problems, and then, too, trying to coordinate with the committees 
up here, I guess I did a little more soliciting for the Senate and the 



7369 

House than anyone else. And I know that indirectly we were respon- 
sible for a lot of money going to Senate and House candidates and to 
the committee on the Hill right here, to both committees, actually. 
This wasn't the first time that I had solicited funds for those commit- 
tees. In fact, I never stopped soliciting from the time I left the com- 
mittee over here. 

Mr. Weitz. Can you explain why Mr. Odell has testified that to 
his recollection, there was no mention of any loans or repayments in 
connection with these transfers? 

Mr. NuNN. No; I can't. I don't know. I don't know who talked to 
Odell. 

Mr. Weitz. He testified under oath before this committee. 

Mr. NuNN. No; there would be no reason necessarily to get into 
that area with Mr. Odell because Odell didn't owe anything. The 
people who were owing was the Senatorial Campaign Committee and 
the House Campaign Committee. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, his committee, though, the committee which 
he was affiliated witli, they received the transfers from the senatorial 
and the congressional committees. If they were repayments, presum- 
ably he would know. 

Mr. NuNX. They would be to those accounts, yes. I don't recall. I 
could have talked to Odell, probably did, but I don't recall what was 
said or anything of that kind. I do know what tlie intent was and 
what we were endeavoring to do. 

Mr. Weitz. Off the record liere. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Weitz. Back on the record. 

Mr. Sanders ? 

Mr. Sanders. At the time you spoke with Dr. ISIehren in San An- 
tonio in the fall of 1972, were you aware that he had consulted with 
former President Johnson about a solicitation made or to be made 
by you ? 

Mr. NuNN. No ; I was not. I read in the papers since, that he had 
consulted with him, but even now I don't know whether it was before 
or after I was out there. 

Mr. Sanders. I was going to ask you that. 

Mr. NuNN. I don't know. I don't know but just what I read in the 
paper. I do know he was going down to the ranch. No, I can't recall 
whether he said he was going down to specifically see him, but he 
was going to the ranch that day. 

Mr. Sanders. While vou were there he told you he was going to the 
LB J ranch? 

Mr. NuNN. That is right. 

Mr. Sanders. But he did not tell you wdiy ? 

Mr. NuNN. No; he didn't at all. He just said "if you are going 
out to the airport, I will drop you off." He said he was going that way. 

Mr. Sanders. Did he give you any indication that he was seekmg 
some independent counsel as to whether he should honor any 
solicitations? 

Mr. NuNN. No ; he didn't. What he talked about was his 50-f armer 
board of directors. 

Mr. Sanders. You subsequently learned that he had been to see 
President Johnson only through the news media ? 

Mr. NuNN. I read it in the news media. 



7570 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have any knowledge that in September 1972, 
that the Kepublican National Finance Committee transferred $104,- 
000 to the Eepublican Campaign Committee ? 

Oh, I'm sorry, wait a second. [Pause.] Yes; that is correct. To the 
National Republican Campaign Committee, I mean to the House 
Campaign Committee? 

Mr. NuNN. The Congressional Campaign Committee? No; I have 
no specific knowledge as to the time and the amount. I do know that 
they transferred or loaned funds to both committees. As to when, as 
to the dates and the amounts, that was not available to me. I didn't 
ask. I probably could have had it, if I had asked for it, but I didn't see 
those records. But I do know that was done. 

Mr, Sanders. Were you contemporaneously aware of it? 

Mr. NuNN. Oh, yes, it started as early as the convention in Miami 
Beach when the directors of the Senatorial Campaign Committee and 
the House Campaign Committee — and I'm not sure whether Dominick 
and Wilson were present or not, but they probably were — and they met 
with Secretary Stans and told him of their problem, that they needed 
immediate funds, that they were in need of funds. And Stans at that 
time conceded the Republican National Committee's share of the 
dinner money on the spot, and then, apparently, he advanced these 
other funds to them quite soon afterwards and there was the under- 
standing that their finance situation might improve as time moved 
along and, if so, they would make these repayments. 

And the milk producers' funds, of course, were something that came 
in late and that apparently they hadn't counted on. We felt that this 
swelled their bank accounts to the point where they should be able 
to make those repayments. 

Mr. Sanders. Were you aware that there were several transfers and 
that the total amount transferred into the House Campaigii Commit- 
tee was $300,000 ? 

Mr. NuNN. $300,000 ? I probably have been made aware since, but 
not at that time of the exact amounts because I was so busy and 
wrapped up in other things that I didn't get into those details. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you have an awareness that it was a figure that was 
that substantial ? 

Mr. NuNN. Oh, I knew it was very substantial. I knew it was quite 
a substantial figure. It would have to be in order to be of any particular 
help to them in the Senate and House races. 

Mr. Sanders. You would presume, would you not, that those funds 
were not held in escrow but made of use to incumbents and non- 
incumbent candidates ? 

Mr. NuNN. Oh, yes, they were made of use to them, I would think 
almost immediately. 

Mr. Sanders. And Mr. Weitz asked what would be the benefit to any 
House and Senate candidates from the funds transferred in from 
CTAPE in October, if the money was then used to repay a loan, well, 
but there was a transfer in, to begin with, that was of benefit to the 
House and the Senate ? 

Mr. NuNN. That is right and the transfer was made early. So at 
this stage of the campaign now, Mr. Weitz, you mentioned Odell and 
his view as to the use of the money, and at this stage of the campaign, 
when Stans was making these loans to the committees, it was useful 
for television, newspapers or anything else because you were early 
enough then and you had a little time to plan. 



7571 

Mr. Sanders. Is there aii}^ doubt in your mind. Mr. Nunn, but that 
there were truly legitimate transfers into the House Campaign Com- 
mittee and that the transfers back later on were in repaj-ment of 
those loans? 

IVIr. NuNN. No doubt in my mind. Of course that is something 
that I didn't handle. Secretary Stans was chairman of the Republican 
National Finance Committee. The only part I played in that is the 
movement of the fimds to the two committees and then to the Republi- 
can National Finance Committee. 

Mr. Sanders. You know of no facts which would derogate the 
legitimacy of the transactions ? 

Mr. NuNN. Pardon me ? 

Mr. Sanders. You knew of no facts which would derogate to the 
legitimacy of those transactions ? 

Mr. NuNN. No, no. 

Mr. Sanders. Now the House and Senate Campaign Committees 
operate as independent entities, do they not ? 

Mr. NuNN. Yes ; they do. 

Mr. Sanders. Now, you have had experience on one of them and 
indirect experience with the other. Do they not function with some 
considerable independence over the acquisition and use of their funds? 

Mr. Ntjnn. Yes; they do. On the other hand, the committees are 
always very cooperative, too, and they do cooperate particulary when 
the dinner operations are going on. 

It was customary to transfer funds back and forth and to give one 
committee a greater share of the funds than they had originally 
agreed to at the time of going into it, because their need was greater 
or you would advance funds during the dinner. At one time, of course, 
the Republican National Finance Committee financed everything 
and then it got too much. This thing has been going on constantly, 
this transferring of funds from one committee to another. There is 
nothing unusual about it. 

Mr. Sanders. Could any funds be transferred out of the House or 
Senate Campaign Committees without the genuine approval and 
authority of the chairmen of those committees ? 

Mr. NuNN. Well, I know when I was the director of the com- 
mittee, I would never dream of transferring — well, I couldn't, you just 
couldn't do it — you just didn't dream of transferring any funds to 
anyone without the approval of the chairman of the committee. 

I think there was a limitation on the amount of a check that would 
be drawn without approval there at one time. It may have been res- 
cinded since. I don't know. But the bank always was the custodian 
and the treasurer of the funds. 

I never signed a check in my life for the Senatorial Campaign Com- 
mittee. There were always requisitions that would go down to the 
bank and they would sign the checks. The treasurer was the presi- 
dent of the bank, as a matter of fact, for a long time. I think they have 
a new one now. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you laiow of any circumstances in October or No- 
vember 1972, which might indicate that the House and Senate Cam- 
paign Committees did not have complete prerogative to withhold re- 
]^ayment of the loan to the Republican National Committee if it so 
desired ? 



7572 

Mr. NuNN. It was completely in their hands. They could very well 
have told me to ^o to hell, that "We are sorry but we need all of that 
money and w^e will pay your loan 10 years from now." There wasn't 
anything that we could do about it. It was completely in their hands. 
We had no authority over them at all. 

Mr. Sanders. Except for what you have learned through the news 
media, did you have or do you have any knowledge of any commit- 
ment on the part of the AlVIPI or TAPE or CTAPE to provide the 
reelection effort with a certain amount of funds in payment for an in- 
crease in the milk price support ? 

Mr. Ntjnn. No, I never had any know^ledge of anything of that na- 
ture. And of course all that you read in the papers, as to what hap- 
pened and the timing and so forth, I was Avith the Senatorial Cam- 
paign Committee and knew nothing about the period, which the alle- 
gations allege all this supposedly to have taken place. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have any knowledge that any payments made 
by AMPI or TAPE or CTAPJE or any offers of payment had any 
relationsliip to the antitrust suit filed against AMPI? 

Mr. NuNN. No. 

Mr. Sanders. At or about the same time as the October-November — 
well, I guess it was all in October, the 1972 contributions by CTAPE 
to the House and Senate Republican Cailipaign Committees, there 
were similar contributions to the Democratic House and Senate Cam- 
paign Committee. Now did you have contemporaneous knowledge of 
those contributions ? 

Mr. NuNN. I think Dr. Mehren told me — well, actually I know one 
thing he did tell me Avas that he was a member of the opposition party 
and he had occupied a position in President Johnson's cabinet. And 
he inferred that in this position they Avere nonpartisan, that to a great 
extent they Avere looking after the interests of the membership and 
their dairy people and that they did contribute to both sides. And of 
course I knew that they had made contributions to the Democratic 
Party. I think that they felt that President Nixon was better for the 
dairy farmer and, therefore, they supported him. But anyAvay, at the 
same time they Avere supporting Democratic candidates for both House 
and Senate all around the country. 

Mr. Sanders. At or about the same time, did you learn of the exact 
amounts of their contributions to the Democratic campaign ? 

Mr. NuNN. No. I don't think any exact amounts were discussed at 
all. 

Mr. Sanders. At or about the same time, did you have any knoAA'l- 
edge that the contributions by CTAPE to the Democratic campaign 
committees were to be under the review authority and control of Mr. 
Mills, Senator Humphrey, and Speaker Albert? 

Mr. NuNN. No, I don't believe I had that information. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you learn that at any subsequent time ? 

Mr. Nunn. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Sanders. "Wlien did you learn that ? 

Mr. Nunn. I don't recall what time. It Avas late. 

Mr. Sanders. And by AA^hat means did yoii learn that? 

Mr. Nunn. I don't remember, but probably through one of the 
Republican National Committees' operations. I don't recall. 

Mr. Sanders. Did yo\i learn of any exercise of that authority by 
those men? 



7573 

Mr. NuNN. No, I did not. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you know why those particular individuals were 
designated ? 

Mr. NuxN. No, I do not. Much of what you hear in that area is of 
course by word of mouth, rumor and speculation and so on. 

Mr. Sanders. Well, before we leave the subject of milk contributions, 
I would like to make sure that you have every opportunity to offer 
whatever explanation you would 'ike to, in order to spread it on the 
record, and also have sufficient opportunity for your attorney to offer 
any clarification. You can take it now if you wish. Is there anything 
else you would like to say about it ? 

Mr. NuNN. I don't know that there is anjrthing further that could 
be said to clarify it any more. I do know that at this period in time that 
we were all, and I especially, completely overwhelmed with work and 
sort of running around like a wild man when you have an election a 
little more than a week ahead and you are handling 50 State finance 
chairmen. 

The only thing that I could see that might have been confusing 
would have been a lack of explanation or not enough discussion with 
the people involved. 

I don't see how anyone could gain the impression that it was a divi- 
sion of the milk money, although the milk money evidently did make it 
possible for the two committees to make a substantial repayment on 
their loans. I'm of the opinion that had we been told to funnel this 
milk money to your committee through these chamiels, that if there 
was anything of that nature, that we would have asked for the entire 
amount. 

And I am still confused over the problem. I know what our intent 
was and I know the loans were made and I know that there was inten- 
tion by both committees, I am sure that, if it was possible, that they 
would repay part or all of those loans, as has happened in the past, and 
that this was an opportunity for them to make substantial repayments, 
which they did. 

I guess the thing that created so much confusion is that it was truly 
milk money that made possible those repayments because, unless those 
contributions had been received, they couldn't have made them. But I 
am still unable to see what is wrong with the transaction. Maybe it is. 
I don't know. 

Mr. Duncan. There is one thing I would like to clarify and that is 
the amounts of these transfer. Our records agree pretty much with 
yours. We didn't have the record of, well, I believe you said Novem- 
ber 27, 1972. We didn't have that transfer of $2,000, which you were 
not sure was related or was not. 

Mr. Weitz. November 20. 

Mr. Duncan. November 20 ? 

Mr. Weitz. November 20, 1972. 

Mr. Duncan. Well, that would have meant that there was a total of 
$202,000 eventually transferred back to the Committee for the Re- 
Election of the President. 

Mr. Weftz. No, I am sorry. Let me say this. As I say, of all, the 
$2,000 I mentioned was not necessarily related. The record does not 
indicate that, but the $2,000 on November 20 was from the senatorial 
committee to the Republican campaign committee. I think we are in 



7574 

agreement that the amoimt transferred from the campaign committee 
and the Republican National Finance Committee to the Finance Com- 
mittee To Re-Elect the President was a total of $200,000, that is, two 
$100,000 transfers. 

Mr. Duncan. We have another transfer on November 27, 1972, 
which again may be related or unrelated, and that is of $12,000. In any 
event, it would appear that about $88,000 more or less remained with 
the House congressional committees. 

Now, I believe Mr. Sanders mentioned that the total advanced in 
one way or another to the congressional and Senate committees was 
$300,000 ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Sanders. That is my understanding. 

Mr. Duncan. This record does not coincide with our records. Again, 
we may be talking about what Mr. Stans authorized for transfer to 
those committees. Mr. Sanders may be referring to what was actually 
transferred, because our records don't make that distinction. 

The records that we were able to develop indicate that Mr. Stans 
actually authorized the advance of some $605,000 to the Senate and 
congressional reelection committees at or about the time of the Repub- 
lican National Convention in Miami, and that it was against the ad- 
vances actually made on that commitment that payments were made 
in late November or during November through the Republican cam- 
paign committee and back to the Finance Committee To Re-Elect. 

I wonder if you could clarify the record as to what the discrepancy 
between the $605,000 actually authorized by Mr. Stans and the $300,000 
figure, which you mentioned, was ? 

Mr. Sanders. I can state to you what information I have, which 
is provided to me by Bob Costa, who is an accountant on our staff, and 
it may be that he is not completely right. It is not completely clear to 
]ne whether his information is based solely on what he was told by 
Mr. Ed Terrar or whether some record examination is included in it. 
But he has informed me that on September 27, 1972, the Republican 
National Finance Committee transferred $140,000 to the NRCC and 
that on the same date the Republican campaign committee, another 
name for the RNC, transferred $60,000 to the NRCC, and that $100,000 
was transferred on October 9, 1972, from the Republican National 
Committee to the NRCC. That is a total of $300,000. 

Mr. Duncan. Perhaps tlie discrepancy is one of the original authori- 
zation for transfers as opposed to what was actually transferred, but 
the only records we come up with are those that indicate the original 
authorization, which was by Mr. Stans, and I understand that other 
than the statement given, the formal written statement, the prepared 
statement given by Mr. Stans, he has been unwilling to comment. In 
other words, he has been unwilling to testify further, in light of his 
pending trial in New York, further in the matter. I suggest that this 
ought to be a matter that is clarified. 

Mr. Weitz. I might add that is absolutely correct. I believe we have 
talked to his attorney but have been unable to talk to Mr. Stans about 
this. 

Mr. NuNN. Well, the only thing that I can figure out is that I must 
have done a pretty good selling job on the effort that I was making 
on behalf of these people and overstressed the milk producers' money 
and made it more important in their minds than it really was. 



7575 

Mr. Weitz. Do we want to take a brief recess before we go on ? 

[A brief recess was taken.] 

Mr. Weitz. Back on the record. 

Anything else you would like to add, Mr. Nunn ? 

Mr. NuNX. Yes, I would. I would like to point out that my authority 
throughout the entire Presidential campaign was somewhat limited. 
I had no authority to sign checks, authorize expenditures, or make 
final decisions in any manner other than details of handling the 50 
State organizations. I had access to no cash boxes and I don't recall 
ever having signed a check as a chairman of any committee. 

I believe I may have been chairman of one committee at some point 
during the campaign. 

Mr. Weitz. Anything else ? 

Mr. Nunn. My authority Avith the Republican National Senatorial 
Committee ended on March 31, 1971 when I left that employment. Dur- 
ing my employment with that organization, I signed no cheeks. All 
records, all incoming cash and disbursement, were handled by the 
treasurer who was an employee of the First National Bank in 
Washington. 

Mr. Weitz. OK. 

Mr, Nunn. Anything else ? 

Mr. Duncan. I can't think of anything. 

Mr. Weitz. I have no further questions. 

[Whereupon, at 5 :15 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
was concluded.] 



FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Caivipaign Activities, 

Washington^ B.C. 
The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 
G-334, Russell Senate Office Building:. 

Present : David M. Dorsen, assistant chief counsel ; Alan S. Weitz, 
assistant majority counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority coun- 
sel ; Robert, Silverstein, assistant minority counsel. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Kalmbach, just for the record, would you state your 
full name, please ? 

TESTIMONY OP HERBERT WARREN KALMBACH, ACCOMPANIED 
BY EDWARD P. MORGAN, COimSEL 

Mr. Kalmbach. My name is Herbert Warren. Kalmbach, K-a-l-m- 
b-a-c-h. 

Mr. Weitz. And your address ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. My home address is 1056 Santiago, S-a-n-t-i-a-g-o, 
Drive, Newport Beach, Calif. 

Mr. Weitz. And as we discussed just before we went on the record, 
our understandino; here today is that your statement is under oath as 
a continuation of your prior testimony before the committee ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. Would your counsel please identify himself for the 
record ? 

Mr. Morgan. Edward P. Morgan, law fimi of Welch & Morgan, 
Farragut Building, Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Kalmbach, following the 1968 election did there 
come a time when you had a responsibility for the surplus funds from 
that election ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. "What was your role of responsibility ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. My recollection is that on or about Januaiy 14, 
1969, Secretary of Commerce-designate, Maurice Stans, asked if I 
would agree to act as trustee for certain funds that were left, over from 
the 1968 campaign. And, as I remembered, he categorized those funds 
as primarily from the primary campaign period, and indicated that 
they would be substantial in amount, and I agreed to undertake that 
role, that of trustee. 

Mr. Weitz. Were funds actually placed in your physical possession 
or control, and certain bank accounts for which you were a trustee.? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Named account ? 

(7577) 



337 O - 74 - pt. 17 - 4 



7578 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, and of course these funds came into my — under 
my control at a later date, subsequent to that January 14, 1969 meeting 
with Mr. Stans. 

Mr. Weitz, Now, did there come a time, in 1969, when you were 
contacted by a representative of the dairy lobby, or dairy industry ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, on or about April — the early part of April — 
as I remember it. I was contacted by telephone by a man by the name 
of Milton Semer, S-e-m-e-r, who identified himself as an attorney in 
Washington, D.C., and indicated, as I remember it, that he was call- 
ing at the suggestion of John Mitchell. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he say in what connection he was calling you ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, he did not. As I recall that very first telephone 
conversation, I think I was at the Madison Hotel and he called me 
from his office, which, as it turned out, is right across the street. And as 
a result of that conversation we met in the Madison Hotel coffee shop, 
I think either that day or the next day, for 10 or 15 minutes as a 
remember it. 

And I think it was at that time that he identified himself as an 
attorney, or the attorney for the milk producers. 

Mr. Weitz. What was the purpose of his contact, did he indicate 
what he wanted to discuss with you, or what in fact, did you discuss 
with him ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, he indicated, in the coffee shop, that his client, 
or clients — I don't remember if he was representing more than one of 
the milk cooperatives or not, but he indicated that his client, or clients, 
wanted to make a contribution and that he had been referred to me by 
John Mitchell, who he said was a friend of his. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he indicate anyone else in the White House with 
whom he had talked, and who might have suggested that he contact 
you, that you recall at this point ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall it. He might have mentioned Jack 
Gleason, but my best memory is that he said that he was calling — had 
called me at the suggestion of John Mitchell. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he discuss in that first conversation, anything with 
respect to the organization or political activity of his client ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think that he said that — words to the effect that 
his client, or clients, had been very much involved in the 1968 election, 
but that they had been on the side, and had been very supportive of 
Senator Humphrey in that campaign. And now, words to the effect, 
that they were AA;dthout friends in the administration and this was the 
reason they wanted to make a contribution. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Mr. Semer indicate the amount of the contribution, 
or the range of the contribution ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I seem to recall that at that first meeting he indi- 
cated $100,000, but I'm not certain on that — of the early April meeting. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he specifiy the recipient, or the intended purpose or 
use of the funds ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, he did not. He simply used the word "contribu- 
tion", and again, as I say, he told me that he had been referred to me by 
John Mitchell. And I don't recall that he indicated any use of the 
funds, other than categorizing the funds as a contribution. 

Mr. Weitz. And was it your understanding that it was at least for 
the purpose, or in connection with, the matter of counteracting the fact 



7579 

that they had no friends, so to speak, as he put it, in the admin- 
istration ? 

Mr. I^LMBACH. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he say in what form he intended to make the 
contribution ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Again, on this my memory is that he indicated 
that — ^and I don't know whether it was at this conversation or a sub- 
sequent conversation. We had several conversations, many conversa- 
tions, in fact, prior to the time that I actually received the funds in 
August of 1969. And either at this very early time, or subsequently, at 
some point, it's my memory — and my best memory — that it became 
clear that they were talking of contributing cash as their contribution. 

Now, one of the reasons, as I try to reconstruct this in my mind, 
and it's of course 5 years old now, is that there were no committees out- 
standing that could receive those funds that I know of, and it's just my 
memory that he suggested cash. And that is my best memory now. 

Mr. Weitz. When you took over responsibility as trustee for the 
surplus funds from the 1968 campaign, or at any time thereafter, in 
connection with that responsibility, did you have any discussions with 
either Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Stans, or anyone else in connection with the 
preferred form of moneys that you would either handle or receive 
from the outside? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. At the outset it was made clear to me that Mr. 
Haldeman would be the one to whom I would report as far as my 
duties as trustee for these funds. And Mr. Haldeman made it clear to 
me in many conversations, that I was to retain the nature of the funds 
as I received them, insofar as it was possible for me to do so. By that I 
mean that the cash I received should remain as cash, and there was a 
checking account that I was — that was established in New York City, 
some $570,000, and that was to remain as a checking account until I 
was ordered to change that, by him. 

But it was credited. Cash was to remain cash and the check was to 
remain in that form. 

Mr. Weitz. 'WTiat about subsequent moneys that you received or 
solicited ? 

Was there ever any — at any time, expressed by either Mr. Stans or 
Mr. Haldeman, to you — preference for seeking cash, rather than some 
other form of contribution ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I recall at least once, and I think it was more often, 
that in talking to Mr. Haldeman, he made it clear that if I was offered 
cash, or if I could obtain cash, I should do so. And the reason for that 
was clear, because I was disbursing funds from the cash fimds at quite 
a rate, and I think that they were concerned that the funds would be 
depleted, and they wanted to add to the funds whenever they could. 

But I remember that I talked to Mr. Haldeman and he so advised 
me, at least on one occasion that, if you can get cash get it. And I 
think there were several other times that he said essentially that 
same thing. 

Mr. WEiTz.Well, given the fact that there were two different sources 
of money at your disposal, one a checking account and one a cash fund, 
was the purpose of expending moneys over a period of time, from 
the cash fund, and the need to replenish it so it would not be depleted, 



7580 

because of the nature of the expenditures that were being made, by the 
use of the cash ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, that is correct, and I never did disburse it 
all from the checking account from the day that it was established 
or at the time it was established. And it was established with funds, 
as I recall it, that came from two so-called nonreporting States. I think 
they were from Illinois and Delaware. Those two States contributed 
approximately $500,000. 

And then there was a payment of $50,000. That was received, as I 
remember it, in the first quarter of 1969. That was received from a 
contributor in cash, and then the $20,000 was the balance of what they 
call the transition budget that was left over from the Pierre Hotel 
transition operation. So in the aggregate, that was $570,000 that was 
set up in a checking account at the National Bank of North America in 
New York City under the name of The Public Institute, which is a 
New York voluntary association. 

Now, there were no disbursements from that $570,000 after it was 
once set up, until all of those funds were transferred to Mr. Sloan 
in the first week of February of 1972, when we zeroed out that account 
and also zeroed out the balance of the cash funds that I still held at 
that time, which was approximately $234,000. 

Mr. Weitz. But that cash fund was essentially the end balance that 
you transferred from fimds that you had both received and dis- 
bursed over a period of 3 years ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. The several safe deposit boxes, 
one at the Chase Bank in New York, and one at the Riggs Bank in 
Washington, and a box at the Security Pacific National Bank in New- 
port Beach, Newport Center branch ; and the fourth box was at the 
Crocker Citizens Bank main office in Los Angeles. 

And we emptied those four boxes, and the aggregate of those four 
boxes came to approximately $234,000, so when you add that $234,000 
and the $570,000, or however it came up, you came up to approximately 
$915,000. I guess it was $571,000, we recorded in the checking account. 
So the aggregate amount that I turned over to Mr. Sloan in the first 
week of February was $915,000, approximately, of which $571,000 
was out of the checking account and $234,000 was the balance of the 
cash. 

Mr. Weitz. Let's go ofi' the record for a moment. 
[Discussion off the record.] 
Mr. Weitz. Back on the record. 

Just to clarify the record, would you state what the sum total of the 
moneys that you transferred to Mr. Sloan in 1972 was? 

Mr. Kalmbach. The sum total was approximately $915,000. And, 
again, as I think about it, that in addition to the $570,000 in the Na- 
tional Bank of North America account, there was approximately 
$111,000 in checking accounts that I had established in Newport Beach, 
so that the aggregate of those two checking accounts, the $570,000 plus 
the $111,000 plus the $234,000 in cash should total approximately 
$915,000. 

Mr. Weitz. Just one more question before we leave this area. From 
the cash in these various safe deposit boxes during the period from 
1969 to 1972, I take it that it was those funds that were used for pur- 
poses such as disbursements to 'Anthony Ulasewicz and also part of 



7581 

the funds disbursed for the candidacy of Governor Brewer in Alabama 
in 1970? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, returning to the contracts between you and Mr. 
Semer on behalf of the dairy cooperative in 1969, did you have occasion 
to meet with Mr. Semer out in California before the delivery of the 
contribution ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, and my memory has been refreshed on that, from 
notes, and I find that I think I met him in early July of 1969, in New- 
port Beach, Calif., and then I met him on or about August 2, 1 think, of 
1969, in Newport Beach. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, in the conversations and meetings leading up to 
the actual delivery of the contribution, is there anything else that you 
can now recall that took place or was discussed, in addition to what 
you have already mentioned ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, yes. I think, again from my memory being 
refreshed, I find that at some point, and I think more than once it was 
stated to me by Mr. Semer, that his client or clients were talking of 
contributing in the aggregate, or as a goal figure for 1969 $250,000. 
And he gave me a range, as I remember, of from $100,000 to $250,000 
that they had as their goal to contribute in 1969, by December 31, 1969. 

Also, my memory is now refreshed, and it's my recollection, that they 
made it clear to me that he had three objectives in mind. He, as the at- 
torney for these clients; these objectives were, one, I think 90 percent 
of parity was a goal. Two was that they would like to have the Presi- 
dent address their convention, I think — the convention that was 
scheduled to be held in Kansas City the next year. And three, that they 
wanted to have some identity or an audience or contact with the 
President so that they could meet him. And, of course, that was also 
included. And they wanted to be able to talk to various people within 
the White House, meaning Milton Semer and his clients making their 
case. 

Mr. Weitz. And the range of $100,000 to $250,000 was in no way 
distinguished from the original discussion, in terms of amount, source, 
use of the money, than the original $100,000 figure mentioned by Mr. 
Semer ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. It was not. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember any discussions with Mr. Semer before 
or at the time of the delivery of the contribution of any alternate 
method of reporting or receipt of the moneys to committees and so 
forth? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Absolutely not. He transferred the funds to me 
on or about August 2, and there was no mention of any reporting 
requirements, or no request for a receipt for funds at all, that I can 
remember. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall any discussion as to the source of the 
funds? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I do not. 

Mr. Weitz. What was your understanding of the source of the 
money ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. My understanding of the source of the money was 
from his clients, and be^^ond that I have no memory at all of him 
telling me how these funds were, in fact, raised. 



7582 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember any discussion as to the existence of 
political trusts as adjuncts to the cooperatives ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, I do, and I think at some point during these 
rather — and there were numerous conversations that I had with Mr. 
Semer, dating from early April through to the time that I received 
the $100,000 in cash — that at various points during this time, he gave 
me background on the way these people, these cooperatives, raised 
political funds. 

Mr, Weitz. But at no time did he specify, and particularly at the 
time of the delivery of the money, did he specify the source of the 
money ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I have no memory at all that he told me of 
the source of it, that it was just my understanding that these funds 
had come from his clients. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you understand whether or not there were more 
than — whether there were as many as 20 sources for the money ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I did not understand that. Again, as I say, I 
don't remember that he particularized as to the source, and it was 
just my assumption that he obtained these funds from his clients. 
But I was not aware of how, in fact, they were obtained. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, you've mentioned — ^but first, before we get to 
that — ^before receipt of the money, did you check with, or report to 
Mr. Haldeman, with respect to the offer of a contribution offered by 
Mr. Semer ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Of course. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you explain to him what you've told us today ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I did. I told Mr. Haldeman that I had been 
approached by Mr. Semer and I know, too, that I talked to — I con- 
firmed with Mr. Mitchell that Mr. Semer was known to him, and 
I did talk to Mr. MitchoU, I think it was within a day or two. after 
I talked to Mr. Semer, just to make certain that this person was what 
he said he was. And it's my clear memory that Mr. Haldeman author- 
ized me to receive any contribution that was offered by these people. 

Mr. Weitz, Did you also indicate to Mr, Haldeman, discuss with 
him, the goals or interests of Mr. Semer's clients ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't think at the outset these goals or interests' 
were made known to me. But when they were made known to me later 
in our conversation, I'm certain that I made those known to Mr. Halde- 
man, inasmuch as he was the one to whom I was reporting as trustee. 

Mr. Weitz. When you said "later," would this have been later in 
your series of meetings but before or contemporaneous with the de- 
livery of the firet contribution ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you also report to Mr, Haldeman upon receipt of 
the contribution ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, I did, and I'm certain that I told Mr, Halde- 
man immediately or within a week or so after I received the $100,000 
that I had, in fact, received that money, and again stated to him the 
objectives that Mr. Semer had given to me. 

Mr. Weitz. What did you do with the money ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I put it in a safe deposit box in the Security Pacific 
National Bank, Newport Center branch, Newport Beach, Calif. 



7583 

Mr. Weitz. And it was out of those funds, commingled with others, 
that was applied to the various purposes, some of the purposes to 
which you referred to today ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. And the surplus from those moneys was transferred 
together with the amounts in the checking account, to Mr. Sloan in 
1972 ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you report or discuss your contacts with Mr. Semer 
with anyone else that you can recall in 1969 in the White House, other 
than Mr. Mitchell, who, of course, Avas the Attorney General, and 
Mr. Haldeman? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. I think I advised Mr. Flanigan, Mr. Ehrlich- 
man, and Mr. Stans. Of course, Mr. Stans was not in the A'NHiite House 
as such, but he was in the administration. 

Mr. Weitz. I should enlarge that question to include anyone in the 
administration. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Were there any reactions or comments or messages that 
you recall from those gentlemen ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, there were no particular reactions, other than — 
oh, Mr. Dent would be another man that I would have advised of tliis. 
And I think the reactions were siniiply that I told them, either one 
or all of them, told them of Mr. Semer's objectives, certainly, as to the 
objectives that he had, that he wanted to meet with certain of the 
people within the "\Yhite House. 

And Mr. Gleason, incidentally, would be another one that probably 
I advised of this. 

And it was made clear to me by one or more of these people that meet- 
ings would and could be arranged between Mr. Semer and one or more 
people within the AVliite House. 

Mr. Weitz. Not the President, yet, ])ut at least some aides ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. And I don't recall that the President was 
mentioned. 

Mr. Weitz. By them ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. By them. 

Mr. Weitz. But you, in fact, mentioned to them the dairy people's 
interest in meeting with the President ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. And also, of course, their interest 
in having the President address their convention, I think, the follow- 
ing year in Kansas City, as I remember. 

Mr. Weitz. And the setting of parity at 90 percent ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember taking any steps within the next 
several weeks after the receipt of the contribution to, in fact, arrange 
or assist in the arrangement of a meeting between Mr. Semer and 
Mr. Dent? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Weitz. How did you go about that? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think I called Mr. Dent. It was subsequent to the 
time that Mr Semer gave me the $100,000, on or about August 2, 1969, 
and I think I called Mr. Dent, and Mr. Dent agreed to see Mr. Semer. 



7584 

And I think I also talked to one or more of the others in the White 
House to set up other appointments for Mr. Semer. 

Now, I'm not — my memory is not clear as to what people he met 
in the administration. 

Mr. WErrz. You were not present ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. But I was never present at any of those meetings 
that I remember at all. But I'm certain that the people that he did 
meet in the administration were — it was probably the result of calls 
that I made to either Bob Haldeman or John Ehrlichman or Harry 
Dent or some of the others that I've named. 

Mr. Weffz. Did either you, in your conversations with people in 
the administration in comiection with this contribution and the con- 
tract with the dairy people, or did any of those individuals with whom 
you talked, express any concern about the discussion, both contribu- 
tion or contributions — substantial contributions — and certain aims or 
interests that they had in substantive policies and in contacts with 
the administration ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Excuse me. I'm not certain as to your question. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you perceive the dairy people as hoping; that their 
contribution would assist them in fjaining, No. 1, access to the White 
House, meetings with the President, and some substantive policy 
decision with regard to parity, the setting of parity ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't know if this is responsive to your question, 
but it was clear in my own mind, that as a result of this contribution 
and contributions by, or further contributions by, Mr. Semer and his 
clients, that meetings would be arranged for Mr. Semer and his clients 
to meet with certain people within the White House to put forth his 
case on behalf of his clients. 

Now, I don't recall that I had any understanding beyond thai as 
to any substantive results that would be forthcoming. I simply stated 
to one or more of these people in the White House or in the adminis- 
tration, the objectives that Mr. Semer had made known to me. 

fDiscussion off the record.] 

Mr. Weitz. I take it, then, that you expressed no concern that fur- 
ther contributions should not be received from the dairy people as a 
lesult of their expressed interest to make contributions and seek out an 
audience for the serious matters that you've outlined ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I did not. 

Mr. Weitz. And no one in the White House expressed such a 
concern ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall. 

Mr. Weitz. To you ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. I don't recall any such concern, and I don't 
recall that I expressed — or I don't recall that I had any concern. 

Mr. Weitz. Subsequent to the receipt of the contribution from the 
dairy people in August of 1969, were there any further contacts that 
you had shortly after arranging for the meeting between Mr. Dent 
and Mr. Semer? Any further contacts in 1969 with Mr. Semer in con- 
nection with additional contributioiis? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall. I remember that I talkeil to Mr. 
Semer — oh, probably three or four times after the August meeting, 
before the end of the year, and I think there were a couple of conver- 
sations in October; and I'm not certain whether those were telephone 



7585 

conversations or personal meetings when I was in Washington. Often- 
times, I would see him when I was in Washington. I would be at the 
Madison, and we would have a cup of coffee together, and something 
like that, and my memory is, I think I called the White House two or 
three times on Mr. Semer's behalf, attempting to arrange meetings 
between Mr. Semer and people in the administration. And I don't — 
I think, as I say, he met with Mr. Dent, I believe. I believe he met 
with others. I don't remember who they were, but very possibly 
Mr. Ehrlichman. But I feel relatively certain that anyone who he 
met with, it was probably the result of my making calls to arrange 
such meetings. 

Mr. Weitz. Can you shed any light as to why there were no further 
conversations, or, more importantly, contributions by them up to 
the $250,000 range in 1969 that they had mentioned ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, I think that one of the — as I think about it, 
one of the reasons that probably there wasn't additional contributions 
is that I feel, in looking back on that and having my memory re- 
freshed, that Mr. Semer expressed a little dismay to me in late 1969, 
words to the effect that he wasn't really getting — wasn't meeting with 
too many of the people, and the response wasn't really what he had 
lioped for. And I had the feeling that he was a little turned off on all 
of this, that he had had maybe two or three meetings, or whatever 
it was, but they weren't as productive as he had hoped. So there was 
no offer of additional contributions, and I don't remember that I 
solicited additional amounts. 

I think I should add here, that it is my memory that I did not solicit 
Mr. Semer. Mr. Semer came to me at the suggestion of Mr. Mitchell, 
and I don't know that Harry Dent and some of these other people kner\v 
of these surplus funds that I held. I'm not certain that they knew at 
that time. I think they became aware of it later, but I'm not certain 
that they knew about it. But I want to make the point that I did not 
solicit Mr. Semer. 

Mr. Weitz. But they did understand whether or not you were a 
trustee of the previous funds from the previous election ? You at least, 
as of August 1969, became custodian, some way, of a contribution from 
the milk people ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think they all understood that Mr. Semer was 
representing a contributor. I'm not sure as to — in my own mind — as to 
whether they understood that he had. in fact, contributed — all of these 
people had contributed — that he had contributed that year. But cer- 
tainly, Mr. Haldeman knew about it; Mr. Stans knew about it; Mr. 
Mitchell knew about it. As to Mr. Flanigan and some of those people, 
I'm not certain in my own mind. 

Mr. Weitz. I'd like to show you a letter dated January 21, 1974, from 
Mr. E. C. Heininger to Kenneth Parkinson. 

It refers to a request by Associated Milk Producers, Inc., for the re- 
turn of a $100,000 contribution delivered to you by Mr. Semer in 1969 
on the basis that it was ultimately generated out of corporate funds. 
And I'd like to ask you whether you have any knowledge of the way in 
which the funds were repaid out of corporate funds, allegedly in this 
1 etter , at the end of 1 969 ? 

INIr. Kalmbach. I do not. I have no memor3^ 



7586 

Mr. Weitz. Have you ever seen this letter, or are you familiar with 
the request made by Mr. Heininger on behalf of AMPI ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I have never seen this letter. I think I noticed in the 
newspapers, something; to the effect that there had been such a request 
made, but I had no knowledge at all. I haA'e no memory at all that I 
had any understanding that this was corporate funds. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have an understanding of whether or not the 
cooperatives, or his clients, were, in fact, corporations? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. It was my understanding that his clients were 
cooperatives. Of what sort of an entity, I'm not absolutely certain, but 
groupings of individual dairymen who contributed. I think I remem- 
ber that they contributed approximately $100 apiece per year per 
dairyman, and that they had 40,000 or 50,000 dairymen in this one 
major cooperative. I think it was AMPI plus several more thousand 
dairymen, and two or more additional cooperatives. 

Mr. Weitz. I believe the records that we have uncovered, and also 
some records released by the White House in connection with the 
President's personal finances, indicate that in July of 1969, $100,000 
was transferred from a personal bank account of the President's in 
Key Biscayne, to an account for which you w^ere trustee in California. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. And those funds were ultimately used as part of the 
purchase price of this San Clemente residence ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. What I want to ask you, is whether any of the money 
that you received from Mr. Semer on behalf of the dairy people, was 
used, either for the purchase of San Clemente, or to reimburse the 
President for the moneys transferred to effectuate the purchase ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. The answer is no. 

Mr. Weitz. Off the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Sanders. I'd just like to explore with you some thoughts you 
may have had as to the — that is, at the time of actual receipt of the 
money from Semer, about what possible uses would be made of the 
money. 

Did you consciously have in mind that the money was to be held 
for the 1972 Presidential campaign, or what other thoughts did you 
liave in mind about it ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I had in mind the thoughts that these funds were 
being added to trust funds that I then had under my control, and that 
they would be commingled with those trust funds, and used as I was 
directed, for political purposes, by Mr. Haldeman. 

Now, by the time I received this $100,000 in early August, I had 
already m^dp the arra nsrement to pav Mr. Ulasewicz, again at the 
direction of Mr. Ehrlichman, I think, Mr. Haldeman. And there had 
been several payments. I think, by this time of pooling costs; and if I 
had any thought on that at all, it was just my thought that similar 
type expenditures would be authorized, and these were all commingled 
with the balance of my trust fund. 

Mr. Saxders. Did your thoughts — did the 1970 congressional race 
expenditures enter into your tlioughts for this money ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I'm not certain if they did. I don't recall that I was 
told that any of these funds would be disbursed to congressional can- 



7587 

clidates, and I don't recall that I did so understand, or think about 
that at that time. 

Mr. Saxders. Did you reg^ard the payment of moneys to Ulasewicz 
as being for political purposes ? 

Mr. Kalmbagh. I understood that from Mr. Ehrlichman particu- 
larly, that this was work of a political nature, and investigative work 
that ]Mr. Ulasewicz was doing; and I understood Mr. Ulasewicz was 
reporting to Mr. Caulfield, Avho in turn was reporting to Mr. Ehrlich- 
man. And I was not aware of the type of assignments that Mr. Ulase- 
wicz had, or the specific assignments, other than that they were politi- 
cal in nature and that they were investigative in nature. 

Mr. Sanders. And did it ever occur to you that any of these expendi- 
tures, then, were not for some political use ? 

Mr. Kalmbagh. No. I don't recall any expenditure that I made from 
my funds, or from the trust, funds that were not political in nature. 

Mr. Morgan. That depends on one's definition of political. 

Mr. Sanders. Well, with the j)redicate of his explanation of the 
Ulasewicz expenditures 

Mr. Morgan. I would just, so the record is clear, be sure that we're 
talking now about the Ulasewicz activities prior to the time which he 
delivered funds. Ulasewicz — in other words, I want the record clear 
that you have now been talking to this point with respect to funds that 
went to Ulasewicz — I mean, who worked with Caulfield. 

Mr. Weitz. Prior to the 1972 election. 

Mr. Morgan. In other words, I don't want this confused with the 
other situation. 

Mr. Weitz. After the 1972 election ? 

Mr. Morgan. Eight. 

Mr. Weitz. Yes, I understand. 

Mr. Kalmbagh. Now, I don't understand whether this is true or 
not, but I have some memory that Mr. Ulasewicz had some and you 
know, my memory on this is very vague, as to whether or not Mr. 
Ulasewicz did some investigative work as to Don Nixon. But I'm 
not certain on that. Now, whether or not that could be classified as 
political, I'm not certain. But I think that, just for the full story, I 
must say that I have a vague memory of that. 

Mr. Sanders. At one point during Alan's questions, you remarke(J 
that Semer had explained to you how the dairy co-ops raised their 
funds, and at another time, that you were told that the farmers 
checked off up to $100 a year, and this money was aggregated. Was 
this explanation to you by Semer before the delivery of the money ? 

Mr. Kalmbagh. I'm not certain. I'm just not certain. I think that 
it was, but I'm not certain of that, and it could be that I'm confusing 
myself here with later explanations of how the milk cooperatives 
were — how these political funds were developed, that I learned in 
1970, when I learned that from Marion Harrison and Pat Hillings, 
that I may be confusing myself there. 

But I do have a memory, it seems to me — my best recollection is 
that Mr. Semer advised me of this, but I could be wrong on that. 

Mr. Sanders. If he did not tell you before the delivery of the funds, 
did we at least establish that he did not tell you anything contradic- 
tory of that ? 



7588 

Mr. Kalmbach. My memory on. that is just not too — it's not good. I 
don't know, really, whether he got into that or not. He indicated to me 
that he was — I remember now that he indicated to me that he was 
working on gathering the funds together, but I don't have any specific 
memory as to how that was, or whether he was talking to me about 
the $100 per dairyman during this time. I'm just not certain of that. 

Mr. Sanders. Would you say, however, that you had no thought that 
this was a corporation, in essence ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I would say that I had no thought at all that these 
were corporate funds that he was gathering. 

Mr. Sanders. And therefore, you could not have made any such 
explanation to any persons working in the administration ? 

Mr. Kaliubach. I have absolutely no memory ever, of having any 
thought that he was getting corporate funds, and certainly never men- 
tioned that, because I had never thought of that. I never would have 
mentioned that to anybody within the White House. 

Mr. Sanders. Can you explain why you would have mentioned the 
Semer contact to Flanigan, Peter Flanigan ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. except that I think Peter Flanigan had respon- 
sibilities in certain areas where the milk people had some interest. I'm 
not certain of that, but my memory is that my diaries or my notes in- 
dicated that I did talk to Flanigan about Semer at least once, or maybe 
more times. 

Mr. Sanders. Would it be perhaps because of the imports of dairy 
products ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. It might have been. I mean, prc^bably I think it 
would have been, and I'm going to come up with my very best recollec- 
tion here. But I think it would prcvbably have been that perhaps Mr. 
Semer asked to see Mr. Flanigan, and I talked to Mr. Flanigan about 
meeting Mr. Semer, and whether or not Mr. Semer ever, in iact, did 
meet with Mr. Flanigan, I don't really know. 

Mr. Sanders. I believe that the record showed that, shortly before 
you told us about Semer's three objectives, you made some remark to 
the effect that your recollection had been refreshed by reference to 
notes. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. You have some contemporaneously prepared notes of 
remarks to that effect by Semer ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I have notes that I made to myself that are with the 
Special Prosecutor, and these are notes of 1969 and 1970. 

Mr. Sanders. What was your habit in preparation of such notes? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, these notes were notes that I had a habit, dur- 
ing that period, of making almost a diary of my activities during this 
period, and carried it in an 8 by 10 notebook, and beginning about late 
1970, I discontinued that practice, and I took all of those notes from 
1969-70 and put them together with old notes that I had. pre-1969, and 
put them away in my house. And it was only — oh, several months ago, 
whenever it was, that I remembered I was doing my damdest to get 
every scrap of information that I could possibly get to refresh my 
memory on what had transpired. I found these notes. I delivered these 
notes, in total, to the Special Prosecutor's office and these notes are — 
on these notes is indicated these meetings, these telephone conversa- 
tions, these objectives, and as I say, all of these notes are in the hands 
of the Special Prosecutor. 



7589 

Mr. Sanders. And usually, they would have been — the notations 
would have been made very soon after the events occurred ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. And your recollection is that there is some mention of 
these three objectives in these notes ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, I'm certain of that, 

Mr. Sanders. In the course of your advising the various persons 
in the "VVliite House of Semer's objectives, was anything said to you 
about any action to be taken with respect to the 90-percent parity 
objexitive? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No; I don't have any memory of anything being 
said to me on that score, and I think that my memory of the 90 percent 
of parity was just one of those three objectives. And I think — and I 
can't be at all certain here — but I think that I mentioned these objec- 
tives to one or more of the people within the administration, these 
three objectives. And this is really what these people wanted, and 
particularly Milton Semer, on behalf of his clients. 

Now, I don't remember beyond that that I got into the substance 
of that at all. My sole function was to arrange for these meetings. 
As I told Mr. Weitz, I don't recall that I was ever at a meeting with 
Mr. Semer, with his clients, and with anyone in the administration. 

Mr. Sanders. During any of your 1969 contacts with Semer, did he 
remark to you about the price level for the then-current marketing 
year ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall that. I think he simply told me of 
the objectives, and I remember in my notes that those three objectives 
are stated at the time that he gave me the $100,000; about August 2. 
And I remember in my notes, one, two, three ; but I don't remember 
that Mr. Semer really got into substantive discussions about parity and 
things like that. 

I think I'm absolutely not knowledgeable in it, and the only func- 
tion, as I say — and I'm being repetitive here — I felt that the only 
function I had was to arrange for Mr. Semer to see people within the 
administration, to whom he would then talk about these matters. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you recall that he might have mentioned how 
they proceeded to obtain the price level for milk during the previous 
year ? 

Mr. EIalmbach. No, I don't remember that. 

Mr. WErrz. Let's go oif the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Weitz. I'd like to turn your attention to 19Y0, Did there come 
a time in late 1970 — say November — that you met with and discussed 
with Mr. Haldeman the role or functions you might play in early 
fundraising for the 1972 campaign ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall when that was ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think it was in mid-November of 1970. 

Mr. Weitz. I think the records reflect that either — on either or both 
November 19 or November 20, you met with Mr. Haldeman, according 
to his logs. Is that consistent with your recollection? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Wettz. AYhat was your role to be ? 

Mr. IL\lmbacii. My role was to act as the fundraiser, the principal 
fundraiser for the forthcoming 1972 campaign, and I was to approach 



7590 

a number of the major prospective contributors between that date, 
which was in mid-November 1970, and on into 1972, whenever the 
finance chairman was ultimately appointed. I was authorized by Mr. 
Haldeman to deduct from my trust funds my out-of-pocket expenses. 
My time was not to be charged. I was acting as a volunteer, as far as 
my own time was concerned. 

Mr. Weitz. At about the same time, did you have occasion to meet 
with representatives of the milk producers ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes; I did. I think it was probably — ^and again, 
my notes tell me this, the same notes that I've discussed earlier today — 
my notes tell me that I met, I think, with Chuck Colson in October, 
which is before, of course, my meeting with Bob Haldeman in No- 
vember. And then my notes also indicate that I probably met with 
Chuck Colson in December. 

Now, when exactly these meetings occurred, I'm not certain. I 
think there was a meeting in Chuck Colson's office in October of 1970, 
and I think at that meeting there was Chuck Colson, Harold Nelson, 
Marion Harrison, perhaps Murray Chotiner, perhaps Pat Hillings, 
perhaps David Parr. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall whether Tom Evans of New York was 
present ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall if he was present at that meeting. He 
was present at a subsequent meeting, which I think probably was in 
December of 1970 at the Madison Hotel, at which time it was myself, 
Tom Evans, Pat Hillings, I think Marion Harrison, and I think Chuck 
Colson was at that meeting. And there could have been one or two 
others at the Madison Hotel meeting. 

Now, I recall that at the earlier meeting, which I think was in 
October, there was a statement to the effect that the milk producers 
were going to make a major contribution to the forthcoming— 2 years 
hence — Presidential campaign. And I'm not certain that it was at 
that time that $2 million was stated as their goal figure, or whether it 
was stated at the later meeting at the Madison Hotel, or whether it was 
stated to me by Pat Hillings in just a personal meeting at someplace 
along the line. 

Mr. Wectz. Could you tell us what the purpose of the first meeting 
was that you referred to ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think the purpose of the first meeting, which was 
in Chuck Colson's office, as I remember it — and I could be confused 
on my dates here — ^but, as I remember it, the purpose was that my role 
was not that of a solicitor of this contribution. My role was to help 
them organize their procedures as to how they were to effect these con- 
tributions to the 1972 campaign. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it your understanding, then, that prior to that 
time, they had either agreed to, or represented that they would, make 
that contribution independent of any solicitations by you ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That was my understanding. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know who, in fact, did solicit, or did receive the 
news from them as to their intentions ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No; it would be my understanding that probably 
Marion Harrison, who was the lawyer representing AMPI at that 
time, and Pat Hillings, who I think was of counsel to that firm, had 



7591 

been or were in touch rather frequently with Chuck Colson, and it 
would be my thinking— and I'm just giving you my impressions here— 
that they indicated to Chuck Colson that this is the general goal figure 
for the 'milk producers. But I was advised of this $2 million goal 
figure either in Chuck Colson's office in October— and it could have been 
that early — or maybe before that, or between that day and the end of 
the year, by Pat Hillings or Marion Harrison or somebody. 

And I remember the Madison Hotel meeting, I think, was involved 
again with the legal mechanics of effecting these contributions. I re- 
member we discussed the fact that the milk producers or the coopera- 
tives had independent reporting requirements, independent of the 1925 
Corrupt Practices Act. 

And they were asking for my counsel and, I think, Mr. Evans' 
counsel on 'how they could best proceed to effect the future contribu- 
tions. 

Mr. Weitz. I want to give you a few more questions as to the sub- 
stance of the meeting, as to both meetings. But just to place these in 
point of time, do you recall any instance when you stayed — you visited 
and stayed in Washington, D.C, in that time period 1969 through 
1972, when you did not stay at the Madison Hotel ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No ; but there could have been times that I did not. 
I don't recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know whether Tom Evans — when he carne to 
Washington for that meeting, did he stay overnight, and if so, did he 
stay at the Madison Hotel ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall that he did. It would have been my 
memory that he did not, and — ^but I'm not certain. 

Mr. Weitz. I ask you this because we've had testimony that those— 
remember that the meeting in the Madison Hotel took place in — after 
the election in November of 1970. And the records of the Madison 
Hotel indicate that Messrs. Nelson, Parr, Evans and you were all 
there on the 18th and 19th of November. Now, that's why I ask the 
question. 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think that with that information, Mr. Weitz, I 
think that that could well have 'been the date of that meeting, because 
that was just about the same time as my memory is telling me. I mean, 
I was thinking that it was maybe into December, but this same group, 
Mr. Evans, myself — this would be about the time and that could well 
have been the time that we had that meeting in the Madison Hotel. 
And, as I remember, it was probably in Mr. Nelson's room or suite. 

Mr. Weitz. So he did have a room at the time ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, I think Mr. Nelson. I think you asked me 
about Mr. Evans, but I think it was in his suite at the Madison, or 
that would be my best memory. And I think that this squares with 
what I would remember. 

IVfr. Weitz. Let me ask you another question a'bout that meeting. 

That happens to fall, if that is the time, essentially contemporane- 
ous with your meeting with Mr. Haldeman in which you discussed 
meetings or a meeting in which you discussed your role for the 1972 
campaign. 

Do you recall discussing with Mr. Haldeman in November or De- 
cember of 1970 your meetings and the result of the meetings with the 
dairy people ? 



7592 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, I know that I, of course, was reporting to Mr. 
Haldeman in this area, the finance area. I reported to him throughout, 
not only in my role as trustee, but throughout the 1970 program, which 
was a senatorial campaign program. But I regarded myself as report- 
ing to Mr. Haldeman for that program, and I'm certain that I did 
report to Mr. Haldeman on my meetings there, in Chuck Colson's 
office, and in the Madison Hotel meeting. And, in fact, when I was 
advised of the $2 million goal figure, I am certain that I reported that 
to ]Mr. Haldeman. 

Mr. Weitz. Was that one of the largest, or at that time the largest, 
outstanding pledge or goal figure that had been mentioned to you in 
connection with the 1972 campaign ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it one of the largest ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. One of the largest. 

Mr. Weitz. Wliose was the largest ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Mr, Clement Stone and Mr. John A. Mulcahy. 
And, to elaborate on that, my memory is that both Mr. Stone and Mr. 
Mulcahy pledged in mid-November of 1970, pledged — each of them 
pledged $1 million for 1971, $1 million in 1972, and $1 million after 
1972 if there was a deficit in the campaign. So there you had an aggre- 
gate of $6 million pledged, $2 million of which was contingent on a 
deficit. 

At that same time, Mr. Scaif e — at this same general time, Mr. Scaife 
pledged $1 million in 1971. 

Mr. Weitz. In connection with your meetings in Mr. Colson's office 
and then in the Madison Hotel with the daiiy people, was there any 
reference to any goals or interests of the dairy people in any way simi- 
lar to, or in addition to those mentioned to you by Mr. Semer the pre- 
vious year ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I don't remember that, Mr. Weitz. I just don't. 
It seemed to me that my role and that of Mr. Evans was that of really 
the legal mechanics and the procedures involved, and 1 had the im- 
pression — and again, I'm giving you impressions in this statement — 
that Mr. Hillings, Mr. Harrison, in any discussions as to substantive 
matters were discussing those directly with Mr. Colson and with oth- 
ers. 1 don't recall that this came up as an item of substantive conver- 
sation in these talks. 

I think we were concerned about how to set up committees, where to 
set up committees. I think there was an expressed concern about pub- 
licity and how you could set up the committees so that the fact that 
they were — these people would be contributing to the Nixon campaign 
in 1972 would not become loiown to the media and how you could han- 
dle that, in light of their independent reporting requirements to the 
House. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, the independent reporting requirements you re- 
ferred to, you refer to the organizations themselves, the dairy organi- 
zations or trusts 

Mr. Kalmbach. Cooperatives. 

Mr. Weitz. Cooperatives, right. I think the record shows that it re- 
fers to the trusts themselves. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That's right. The political trusts. 



7593 

Mr. AVeitz. Now, was there any discussion that you recall at either 
of the two meeting's you refer to in 1970 as to ways to avoid that re- 
quirement or avoid that necessity by, for example, having farmers 
contribute directly to political committees established for the cam- 
paign ? 

Mr. Kalivibach. Well, the concern was how do you avoid the pub- 
licity that would come from these people's contributing to Nixon for 
President committees in 1971, 1972, and having that become known 
because, of course, as you loiow, under the Corrupt Practices Act nom- 
ination period there was no disclosure required. And the thought, it 
was made too clear to me and, I think, to Mr. Evans, that there was 
this concern that these people — the fact that they were contributing 
and not that it not be known. There was no thought of doing anything 
improper to do this, but the question was, how do you handle it 
mechanically as to the effect of this. 

And I think — my memory is that there was the thought that they 
could contribute to a number of campaigns in various States through- 
out their operating areas, and the money could be held in committees. 
Now, those committees, in fact — the fact that they contributed, 
say, to Good Government Committee in Iowa, that would have to 
be made known to the Clerk of the House. Now, that's the fact. And 
then those funds would be held for later use and, perhaps, in the 
Presidential campaign in 1972. 

Mr. Weitz. Without necessarily disclosing any transfers from the 
Iowa committee, as an example ? 

Mr. Kalmbacii. That is correct; and without disclosing the fact 
that this Good Government Committee was. in fact, going to use its 
funds to support the campaign in Iowa. And I'm using that as an 
example; and Iowa could well have been a State that was not included 
here. 

But we were trying to develop a procedure that — where they could 
meet their independent reporting requirements and still not result in 
a disclosure. 

Mr. Weitz. Who was the principal' spokesman for the dairy people 
at these meetings ? Do you recall ? 

Mr. Kalmbacii. I think the principal spokesman — well, first of all, 
I think Marion Harrison was the principal spokesman and probably 
the architect of this, of these procedures. And Marion Harrison was 
the attorney. 

Now, he had succeeded Milton Semer. And I thought that the reason 
he succeeded Milton Semer is that INIilton Semer was identified with 
the Democrats and Harrison was identified with the Republicans. 1 
think Marion Harrison was, in fact, a good friend of Chuck Colson, 
and probably Chuck Colson was instrumental in, perhaps, his selection 
by AMPI — Harrison's selection. 

And I felt that Chuck Colson had a great deal of antipathy, and 
he expressed it several times, toward Milton Semer, kind of a personal 
thing. And he and Chuck Colson and Milton Semer, I think, at one 
time were in the same law firm. And although I must say that in all 
of my dealings with Milton Semer I found him to be a 'fine man. 

Mr. Weitz. What was the result of the meetings that you referred 
to in 1970? 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 - 5 



7594 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, the result was that there was — I think one 
thing that was decided on, I'm not certain on this, but I think one 
thing was the thought that the committee — that no one committee 
should take more than $2,500 from any one co-op or trust. 

Mr. Weitz. In any one year or ever ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, I think the thought was — and I don't know 
if it was tied into any one year, but perhaps ever. You have one com- 
mittee set up and a trust could contribute $2,500 to that one committee. 

Now, another two or three other trusts could also contribute $2,500 
to that one committee. But I'm not sure that in these discussions 
whether we were talking only about AMPI or whether we were talking 
also about the other two or three political trusts. 

Mr. Weitz. That would amount to, by my estimate, of upward 
of several thousand committees. Was that your understanding? A 
thousand committees, if I'm correct. No, perhaps approximately 1,000 
or 750 committees. 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. That isn't too many committees. I recall that 
there were 338 committees, I think, more or less that were established, 
that had to be established to receive Mr. Scaife's $1 million. So it's an 
interminable amount of paperwork, but it's necessary to meet the gift 
tax problems, and this is not a scheme to avoid the tax. This is just — 
this has been pretty well said that a committee set up this way with 
'an independent treasurer and an independent secretary-treasurer 
and a chairman, under maybe a rather form-'written charter would 
constitute a separate committee for the purposes of the gift tax. 

And I know that Tom Evans and I were wondering to ourselves, 
really, whether there's a gift tax problem when you have a political 
trust like this. And without going into it at any great length, the 
thought, I think, was that it would be better to set up independent 
committees, even at the risk of all of this paperwork than to run any 
risk of having a gift tax problem. 

Mr. Weitz. Wasn't there also concern about the $5,000 limitation 
to any one committee in any one year ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct, but it's under the Corrupt Prac- 
tices Act, and there is a good cause for some concern that you should 
not exceed $5,000. 

Mr- Weitz. Now, you mentioned that in the case of some other 
large pledges that you became aware of in 1970. there was a rep- 
resentation that thev would contribute $1 million in 1971, $1 million 
in 1972. at least in the two instances you mentioned. Were there any 
timetables mentioned with respect to the dairv pledges ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. I felt that the dairy pledge of $2 million was 
between the time that I learned of it and the date of the election. 
I mean, that's what I understood at the time. As we got closer to the 
election in that turn, that changed. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, in December of 1970, we have both the letter and 
the evidence with respect to the letter from Pat Hillings to the Presi- 
dent, of Avhich you mav be aware.* 

Mr. Kalmbach. I am aware of that letter. 

Mr. Weitz. I would like to — it has already been introduced into 
our record. There's no need for you to either identify it or enter it 
as an exhibit. But I would like to ask you several questions about it. 



♦See Nelson Exhibit No. 1. Book 15, p. 6701. 



7595 

In that letter dated December 16, 1970, Mr. Hillings refers to the 
fact that Tom Evans and Herb Kalmbach were working with the 
dairy people to set up appropriate channels for AMPI to contribute 
the $2 million for your reelection — this is addressed to the President. 
That would reflect the meetings that you've already discussed ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That's thoroughly consistent with what I've testi- 
fied to here. 

Mr. Weitz. It also refers to $135,000 that AMPI had contributed to 
Republican candidates in the 1970 election. And without going into 
any details, I take it you were also involved in the receipt of those 
moneys or at least arrangement for those contributions ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, I was. I received, as I remember, a pledge of 
$100,000 from the dairy industry for that particular program, and 
my notes and records tell me that the $110,000 was received by Mr. 
Gieason, who was the administrator of that 1970 program, as a result 
of that earlier pledge. And I think $10,000 of that was, in fact, cash. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, the final sentence I would like to ask you about 
indicates that AMPI was also funding a special project. Do you have 
any knowledge — did you have any knowledge at the time, in con- 
nection with your contacts with the dairy people, or do you have any 
knowledge up to the present time, as to what that reference means? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. I have been asked about this. At the time I had 
absolutely no knowledge of that so-called special project. "Within the 
recent past, I don't know how long ago it was, I was asked about this, 
and, evidently, this was involved with a $5,000 payment. This was a 
$5,000 payment or amount that was received by Chuck Colson, and I 
had not known about this. 

Mr. Wepfz. Is that speculation or something that you've learned 
that does connect this special project to monevs received by Mr. Colson 
in 1971 ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That's what I understand to be the case. And I 
could be wrong on it, but that's my understanding. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have any knowledge in, let's say, around this 
time, December of 1970, or shortly thereafter, of any particular criti- 
cisms the dairy people had of — their arrangements or contacts with Mr. 
Colson, either in advance of or following the delivery of this letter to 
the White House ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I really don't. There was an expressed criticism 
that was relayed to me somewhat stridently by, I think it might have 
been Bob Haldeman and Gordon Strachan, Chuck Colson and others, 
to the effect that the mechanics weren't being set up, these committees 
were not being: established to receive these contributions. 

And I recall at one time Mr. Strachan asking me to go over to Chuck 
Colson to see what I could do to improve that. I think that was what 
gave rise to my meeting subsequently with Bob Bennett, I know that 
I did not want to have the responsibility for this area, because I had 
not : why, almost 95 percent plus of the people I was talking to were 
not Washington representative types or lobbyists, and I preferred not 
to deal with lobbyists or people of that type. 

And I recall that eventually, and this is just my understanding, that 
Mr. Bennett, I think, was enrolled in this program. 

Mr. Weitz. To organize the committees ? 



7596 

Mr. Kalmbach. To organize the committees, and, I think, probably 
without knowing for certain, Mr. Weitz, that Mr. Colson was in- 
strumental in recruiting Mr. Bennett for that assignment. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, we have a series of White House memorandums 
which are primarily in the period February-March of 1971, and these 
are primarily communications between Mr. Colson, Mr. Haldeman, 
and Mr. Strachan, with reference to the very topic you've mentioned; 
that is, your interest in having some one else handle certain outside 
fundraising and the enrollment of Bob Bennett in this. Is this the 
time period that you're talking about right now ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember the first time you met with Bennett, 
or approximately the time you first met with Bennett? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think it was in the first quarter of 1971, although 
it could have been immediately, it could have been in the first half 
of 1971, but I'm not certain on that. But I remember meeting him 
in the coffee shop of the Statler-Hilton Hotel and just getting a prog- 
ress report. 

And, as I remember, he was setting up the 100 committees at that 
time, getting independent secretary-treasurere and independent 
chairmen. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, I would like to show you for your identification 
a memorandum dated March 18, 1971, from John Dean to Frank 
DeMarco, Tom Evans, and Herb Kalmbach. 

Let me mark this as exhibit 1 and ask you if you recall receiving a 
copy of that memorandum. 

["V^Hiereupon. the dcx-ument referred to was marked Kalmbach ex- 
hibit No. 1, for identification.*] 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't have an independent recollection of receiving 
this, but I could well have, inasmuch as I'm one of the addressees. It 
had been my memory, and it is my memory, in my best memoiy, that 
Mr. Evans supplied the form, the suggested form of draft charter to, 
I think, Mr. Bennett, and he could have given it to Mr. Dean and Mr. 
Dean revised it and sent it on for us to look at. But I don't remember 
seeing this. But, you know, inasmuch as I'm one of the addressees, it's 
likely that I did, but I just don't recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, during the period January, February, and March 
of 1971, we have a fair amount of testimonv with respect to the efforts 
by the dairy lobby to secure an increase in the price level for price 
supports — milk price supports. 

Were you at all familiar — let me take the period from January 1 
to March 12, which was when the Secretary of Agriculture issued his 
first decision not to increase price supports — were you aware, or did 
you have any contact with anyone in the administration or the daiiy 
people to discuss this matter, their interest in that particular matter, 
that year ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. ]Mr. Weitz. I've been asked about this, and I just 
don't have any memory of being involved in these discussions at all. 

NoAv, I could have been, and people could have talked to me about it, 
but I have the feelino: — and I'll snv this ajrain — because it's mv impres- 
sion that iNIarion Harrison, Pat Hillings, were very well acnuainted 
with Chuck Colson and Murray' Chotiner and other people within the 

•See p. 7623. 



7597 

White House, and I would think that those discussions were ongoing 
among those people. And I don't remember that I was involved in 
those discussions, and I don't remember that ]\[r. Evans was involved. 
And we were in the picture to try to be helpful as far as effecting 
the mechanism and procedures for them to follow in effecting their 
contribution. Now, I'm not saying that I wasn't talked to, but I don't 
recall that I was. 
Mr. Weitz, Do you remember any — I'm sorry. 

Mr. Sanders. Before you fully get into 1971, I wonder if I can ask 
some questions about 1970 ? 
Mr. Weitz. Fine. 

Mr. Saxders. I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Weitz. 
Do you think, Mr. Kalmbach, that you most likely first learned of a 
$2 million contribution intention by the dairy co-ops sometime about 
October 1970? 

Mr. Kalmbach. It's very difficult, because I'm relating it to the Pat 
Hillings letter of December, and it was either — it could have been in 
October or very possibly in November or De^'ember. It's in that period 
some place that I learned of the $2 million goal figure on the part of 
the milk producers, l)ut I just can't be certain of this. 

Mr. Sanders. You also, then, have no specific recollection of the 
individual who first mentioned it to you ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I don't. I think it was Pat Hillings, but it could 

have been Marion Harrison. But it's most likely it was Pat Hillings. 

Mr. Sanders. Were you ever present at any meeting with any dairy 

co-op officials Avhere the $2 million contribution intention was 

mentioned ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't remember, Mr. Sanders. I remember there 
were dairy officials present in Chuck Colson's office and present at the 
Madison Hotel, which, I believe, was either in November or December. 
Now, whether or not the $2 million figure was mentioned at that 
time or was mentioned in a separate conversation, I'm not certain. 
I think my best memory, and this is so long ago and so much has 
happened since that I'm not really certain at all, but I think my best 
memory would be that in the meeting in Chuck Colson's office, when- 
ever that was, when that was in October, that probably I learned 
about it then. And I think Harold Nelson and others were present at 
that meeting, but I'm not at all certain. I'm just giving you my very 
best recollection here. 

Mr. Sanders. Was it understood by you that any part o± the $2 
million to be contributed would come from any corporate assets? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, it was not. I understood that it was co come 
from the trusts. 

Mr. Sanders. I did not get a clear understanding of your explana- 
tion of the mention of the special project in the Hillings letter. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Mr. Sanders, my memory is that I did not know 
about any so-called special project at the time this happened. Sub- 
sequent to that time, and it has been within the last — it's been since 
I've been asked about this and have seen documents, I've been advised 
that there was such a $5,000 paynient, and I think it was receiv3d by 
Chuck Colson, and that Chuck Colson and John Ehrlichman were in- 
volved in this in some way. and I don't know, really, what the money 
was used for or if it was used. I'm just giving you my best memory 
of it. 



7598 

Mr. Sanders. In or about December of 1970, you had no knowledge 
of any such special project? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I have no knowledge of that special proiect. Now, 
my memory tells me there were a number of things that Mr. Colson was 
doing, placing ads in newspapers and this and that, and I don't know 
whether there was any funds that were used to pay for those ads. I 
don't know that, but that was just a general thought. 

Mr. Sanders. Concerning the discussions about the establishment of 
gift tax committees in 1970, was it intended that the committees to be 
established for the receipt of contributions by the dairy cooperatives 
were not to be used for the receipt of contributions by other large 
contributors ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I'm sorry. Please restate your question. 

Mr. Sanders. Were the committees that were to be established for 
receipt of contributions from the dairy cooperatives to be used only for 
receipt of those contributions, or were they to be available for the 
receipt of contributions from other large donors ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. And I've been asked this question, too, and my 
memory now is I've seen some copies, I think ]Mr. Dobrovir showed me 
some copies, copies of some material that they had received from the 
AVhite House, and as I reviewed it and tried to refresh myself and re- 
fresh my recollection, it seemed to me that the reasoning in back of that 
went this way : One, that these committees should be established in 
1971 and should receive $2,500 per committee from the milk producers, 
from the trusts, such as TAPE and others. The thought was that no 
other contributions from individuals should go into those committees, 
for the reason that these committees would have to be reported to the 
Clerk of the House, and there might be some disclosure as a result of 
that, that would not be fair to individuals who had a right under the 
1925 act up through the nomination to contribute with absolute 
anonymity. 

So. I think the reasonina: was. Mr. Sanders, that the milk money 
and the milk committees be kept separate so that individuals who 
might contribute to those same committees, that the whole thing might 
come out as a result of the independent reportinsf reouirements. 

Mr. Weitz. So the record is clear. Mr. Kalmbach — I believe you re* 
f erred earlier to tlip faf^t that vou did not recall anv meetings that you 
attended between the dairy people and any administration official. And 
just so the record is clear, I take it the meetings between you and some 
of the dairy representatives — and Mr. Colson would be an exception 
to that 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, I thank you. Mr. Weitz, for clarifynng that. I 
don't regard those meetings as meetings, you know, where thev were 
talking about paritv and substantive items. I really regarded those 
meetings, particularly the one with Mr. Colson in his office, and the 
meeting in the ]Sradison. as meetings where I was trvinp- to be helpful 
in their gettins: themselves set procedurallv and leg-allv on the me- 
chanics. And I think that was true of Mr. Evans. And I don't recall 
that there were discussions in those meetings of their objectives, or 
parity or this or that. 

Mr. Wettz. In another vein, do vou have a familiaritv with the pub- 
lic relations firm in Washington, of Wagner & Baroody ? 



7599 

Mr. Kalmbach. I do not. If that is Baroody, who was a Bill Baroody, 

and who was formerly with the "WHiite House 

Mr. Weitz. I think it's Joseph Baroody. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Was this the Baroody that was in the White House? 
No — ^then I'm not familiar with him. 

Mr. Weitz. And you don't associate that firm, if there is such a firm, 
with the milk producers or Mr. Colson, in any way? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't, Mr. Weitz. I don't have any memory of 
that. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, going back to 1971, particularly in March of 1971, 
and the 1971 period, did you attend a Republican fundraising dinner 
on March 24, 1971, in the Washington Hilton Hotel ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I did. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have any ix>le in fundraising for that dinner? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't know if I did or not. This was something 
that would be completely aside from what I was doing. I think I con- 
tributed — I bought one' ticket. But I don't recall that I helped sell 
tickets for that dinner. I might have. I don't remember. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you familiar with any contributions by the same 
dairy trusts to the dinner, or for dinner committees ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall that I was at the time. Subsequently, 
and particularly in the last year, or whatever it is, that I've been asked 
about this and have seen documents, I have an understanding that the 
milk people contributed funds or bought tickets to this dinner and in 
that way effected a contribution to the campaign in some manner. I'm 
not certain as to what the mechanics were. 

Mr. Weitz. To the 1972 campaign ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That's what I would understand, but I'm not cer- 
tain that I'm right on this. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, we have a memorandum dated February 2, 1971,* 
from Mr. Colson to Larry Higby, who I believe was an assistant to 
Mr. Haldeman ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is right. 

Mr. Weitz. And it refers to an intention of the milk producers to 
purchase 10 tables to the committee dinner, the national committee 
dinner, for a total of $100,000. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have any knowledge of any such intention? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't know if I did or not. I could well have, but I 
don't remember now that I did. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, the memo goes on to refer to the fact that this 
money, if it were, in fact, contributed by the milk producers, would be 
an offset to moneys which had been committed to be raised by the 
White House for the committee. That's the substance of the memo, 
at least. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. And that Mr. Colson is expressing concern that the 
money coming up from tlie milk producers would be clearly attributed 
to that commitment by the "WHiite House, so to speak. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Right. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have any familiarity with the arrangements 
between the White House and the national committee as to that, or 
other similar commitments ? 



♦See Strachan exhibit No. 2-C, p. 7476. 



7600 

Mr. Kalmbach. No; I have a general impression that somebody 
talked to me about it, but that was kind of a bookkeeping arrangement 
as far as I was concerned, between the White House and the national 
committee. And I think that was effected — maybe Lee Nunn would 
be the one that would be particularly knowledgeable about this as to 
what the arrangement was. 

Now, I don't really have any memory of anything more specific 
than that, but it would seem to me that if I had heard about this it 
would be not other than in a casual manner. Beyond that, I don't 
recall that I was involved in setting up this arrangement, this and 
that. I just don't recall this. 

Mr. Weitz. The first paragraph of this same memorandum, which 
I just referred to, which is already a part of our record, the first to a 
$150,000 commitment by Mulcahy to the same — to the national com- 
mittee — did you have any involvement in that ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I did not. And Mr. Mulcahy gave me a pledge 
of $1 million in 1971, $1 million in 1972, and $1 million in 1973, if 
there was a deficit, as I've already testified. But I don't recall that there 
was an understanding separately with Mr. Mulcahy as to this. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, returning to that period, the dinner, as I say^ 
took place on March 24, and you've testified that you attended that 
dinner. 

Prior to that dinner, or during that dinner, did you have occasion to 
discuss, either with Mr. Ehrlichman — let's say, Mr. Ehrlichman first, 
let's say discussed with Mr. Ehrlichman — either thej progress of 
the arrangements for committees, for the milk people, or any other 
matter relating to the milk producers ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. Now, the problem on this is, Mr. Weitz — and 
I've been asked this question too — I don't recall exactly whether I 
talked to Mr. Ehrlichman about the progress of this or not. but I 
do have a recollection that I met with Mr. Nelson and Mr. Chotiner 
immediately following the dinner. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know how that meeting came about? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, and again, I just have to tell you that my 
memory on it is very hazy. But my best memory is that Mr. Chotiner 
approached me, and I think it was at the dinner or as we were leaving 
the dinner, and this was the night of March 24, as I remember, at the 
Washington Hilton Hotel, and asked me if I would be willing to 
meet with him and Mr. Nelson at my hotel — at the Madison Hotel — 
that evening following the dinner. And I said that I would be willing 
to do so. 

Mr. Weitz. Had anyone else spoken to you about such a meeting, 
or possible contact, at some time before Mr. Chotiner's discussion? 

Mr. Kalmbach. It could well have been that Mr. Ehrlichman spoke 
to me about it, but I just don't remember it. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you talk to Mr. Colson, or anyone else that you can 
recall in the administration, in this period of March 1971, in connec- 
tion with the dairy people ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I just — again, I had been doing my darndest to 
dredge up my memory on this, but I don't recall that I did. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, you've mentioned a number of times that from 
time to time you've reported, either to discuss matters in connection 
with contributions or solicitations, with — I think you mentioned Mr. 
Haldeman, Mr. Dean, and Mr. Colson. 



7601 

Could you tell us whether — or the circumstances why you 'believe 
you discussed milk producers in any connection with Mr. El^rlich- 
man, during that period in March of 1971 ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, I know — I think I had lunch with Mi . Ehr- 
lichman on March 25. 

Mr. Weitz. Also on March 12, these records indicate. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. This would be something that — this would be 
a reason, on the ISIarch 12 meeting, that very possibly Mr. Ehrlich- 
man would advise me that the milk people were talking with the ad- 
ministration about this parity situation. But I don-t have an inde- 
pendent recollection of him doing — recollection of him' doing so. 

However, I do have a recollection that following my meeting with 
Mr. Chot iner and Mr. Nelson on the 25th 

Mr. Weitz. The meeting was on the 24th, and then following that, 
you're saying on the 25th ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Didn't I meet with Mr. Ehrlichman on the day 
following that ? 

Mr. Weitz. Right. 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think that at that meeting — I think it was on the 
25th that I told Mr. Ehrlichman that ^Mr. Cliotiner and Mr. Nelson 
had reaffinned their $2 million pledge to the campaign. 

Mr. Weitz. Let's go, then, back to the night of the 24th. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you tell us, after the dinner, what happened? 
"\AT^iere did you go and how you happened to meet with them '( 

]Mr. Kalmbach. Well, I remember I met them in the lobby of the 
Madison Hotel around 10 or 10 :-30, and we then went up to my room 
and after some preliminary conA'ersation I was informed, I think it 
was by Mr. Chotiner, that he had been talking to Mv. Ehrlichman and 
that — it's my best memory that I was informed that there was going 
to be an announcement on the price support the following day. And 
in view of that, that jSIr. Ehrlichman had asked Mr. Chotiner to talk 
to me and reaffirm to me that the milk people would reaffirm their 
pledge of $2 million to the 1972 campaign. 

Mr. AYeitz. You mentioned preliminary conversations. Was there 
anything substantive, or was it just pleasantries ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Just pleasantries. 

Mr. Weitz. You also already — you already knew Mr. Chotiner and 
already met with Mr. Nelson, prior to that time ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Right. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any reference by anyone at that meeting to 
Mr. Harrison — INIarion Harrison ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall that there was. 

Mr. Weitz. What about Pat Hillings ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall. There could well have been, but I 
don't have the recollection of it. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any reference to any bad feelings or any 
disruption in communications between the Harrison law firm, of which 
Chotiner was a counsel at that point, and the White House or Mr. 
Colson? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think there was, as I think about it. I think there 
was probably a statement of some displeasure at the breakdown in 
mechanics in setting up committees and the whole organizational 
approach. 



7602 

And now, I'm not certain as to this point, but for some reason I have 
that feeling. 

Mr, Weitz. Did anything go more to the substance of relations be- 
tween — as a personal matter, for example — between the Harrison law 
firm and/or Mr. Harrison, personally, and Mr. Colson ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I don't recall that it did, ]Mr. Weitz. And I say, 
I'm doing my very best to remember what, in fact, did happen. But 
to me the main, and almost sole purpose of that meeting was the re- 
affirmation of the $2 million pledge and the fact that they told me that 
the price-support decision was to be announced the next day and that 
in view of that fact, and in view of the fact that INIr. Ehrlichman had 
asked Mr. Chotiner to make sure that I was informed of this reaffirma- 
tion, that they were in fact reaffirming the $2 million pledge to the 
campaign. 

JVIr. Weitz. At that time was there — or shortly thereafter — was 
there any discussion of any further details with respect to the $2 mil- 
lion pledge ? That is, any breakdown as to timetable of amounts ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. On that point I think- — - 

Mr. Weitz. I'm sorry, I believe you were going to answer my ques- 
tion with respect to any details or timetables as to 

Mr. Kalmbach. I have a recollection that at some point I was in- 
formed that there was a kind of monthly goal figure of $90,000 a month 
to be received by the campaign. 

Now, when that actually was made known to me, I don't know, and 
I Ve done my darndest to try to recall it, but I can't place it in the time 
frame. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you place it, for example, or, although you can't 
place it specificolly, do you think that it related to a time period fol- 
lowing your meeting on the night of the 24th ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I just cannot place it. 

Mr. Weitz. But you have no recollection that at the meeting on the 
24th, or during the period of March 1971, for example, the dairy 
people were in any way delinquent on a monthly commitment if such 
a commitment was made ? For example, in your discussions with either 
Mr. Chotiner of Mr. Ehrlichman? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Very possibly, and what would cause me to think 
thatmight well be the case is that I think if you divide $90,000 into $2 
million, you can find the number of months that are involved. And it 
could well have been that. And I remember it so well now, that the — 
Gordon Strachan talking to me about the fact that Marion Harrison 
and the others were oftentimes, I think — had checks in hand, but there 
were no committees established to which these checks could l)e routed. 

And it very possibly could be, Mr. Weitz, that this $90,000 a month 
quota, or whatever you might call it, that I had learned of that much 
earlier than March, but I just cannot place it as to any specific date that 
I learned of it. 

Mr. Weitz. I don't want to jump too much out of turn but we have, 
on this point, a September 11, 1971, memorandum from Gordon 
Strachan to Haldeman.* 

Now. the first paragraph reads as follows, "Lee Nunn reports that 
$232,500 has been realized." Parenthetically, I believe the records in- 



*See strachan exhibit No. 4, p. 7483. 



7603 

dicate that of the 100 committees established by Mr. Bennett during 
1971 had received that amount up to that period of time. 

It goes on to state, "This is slightly more than one-half of the 
amount that should have been delivered on the commitment" — $90,000 
per month in parentheses. 

Now, one way of interpreting this memorandum is that $232,500 is 
slightly more than half of $450,000. $450,000 divided by $90,000 is 5 
months worth on a $90,000 per month commitment, according to the 
memorandum. 

September 11, 1971, is the date of memorandum. That would relate 
back, depending on whether the fifth month ends in September or in 
August to either March or April of 1971. 

I guess I'm just asking you again, does that shed any light on what 
your recollection was as to such a $90,000 a month commitment — when 
you first became aware of it ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, it's helpful to me. And I think in view of that 
memorandum from Mr. Strachan, that it's very likely that the $90,000 
a month goal figure was to be from and after the March 25 date. And 
that I could well have been apprised of it that evening or maybe shortly 
thereafter. 

Mr. Weitz. At your meeting on the 25th of March, with Mr. Ehrlich- 
man, I believe you testified that you related to him the substance of the 
previous evening's conversation. Did he further elaborate in any way 
on the price-support decision and/or its relationship to the contribu- 
tions in your meeting the previous evening ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I don't remember that he did that, Mr. Weitz. 
And I don't remember — it seems to me that that meeting on March 25 
was a meeting with Mr. Ehrlichman, Senator Murphy, and Mr. Mil- 
bank. And it seems to me that I just informed Mr. Ehrlichman of my — 
of this message that I had received from Mr. Chotiner the night 
before. 

I think I just mentioned that in a very brief aside to him either 
immediately before the meeting or immediately after the meeting, and 
the two of us together only. 

Mr. Weitz. Would it be a fair statement to say that you had no real 
opportunity to go into any detail with him as to the previous night's 
conversation ? 

Mr. Kaembach. Yes, I think that would be fair and I think all I 
wanted him to know was the fact that this reaffirmation had, in fact, 
been made to me. And he just simply, very summarily, acknowledged 
that statement of mine. And I don't remember that he added anything 
to it. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, on a May 21, 1971, memorandum, from Strachan 
to Haldeman, that we have — and that is part of our record — the sub- 
ject is a "Kalmbach telephone call of May 21," and among other things 
it refers to the collection of milk money. It states that the responsibility 
has been shifted entirely to Mr. Nunn, and that there were 76 checks in 
hand, each for $2,500, with 26 more available when the committees 
were established.* 

Now, this is in May of 1971. Is that consistent with your recolle<*tion 
as to approximately the timetable in establishment of the committees 
and receipt of the moneys ? 



•See strachan exhibit No. 3, p. 7478. 



7604 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, it is. And this could well be when Mr. Bennett 
was operating. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember any instance in which checks were 
actually made out and even delivered, but had to be voided because the 
committees weren't yet ready ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, but I think I was told that there were checks 
that had been received by Mr. Harrison and that he had to hold them 
because the committees weren't extant. But I don't remember checks 
being voided. They could well have been. 

Mr. "Weitz. Because you were no longer responsible at that time ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, I just didn't stay close to the administration 
of this program. I was in and out. And after Mr. Nunn, who, as I 
remember it, was the one primarily responsible for the kickoff dinner 
on March 24, he came over to the campaign, I believe, subsequent to that 
dinner, and then took over the administration, or took over the respon- 
sibility for dealing with these milk people. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, on page 2 of that memorandum, it refers to the 
fact that the money would be collected in the Bennett committees and 
that it would be unwise to transfer them into committees receiving 
moneys from other sources for fear that it would contaminate those 
other moneys. 

Now, that, I suppose, is explained by the reasoning you've given us 
today, as to separate the milk money from other contributions for fear 
of disclosure? 

Mr. Kalmback. That is my feeling and that is my feeling as to the 
explanation for the word "contamination." 

Mr. Weitz. Now, in the committee's hearings last summer with Mr. 
Dean, there was a memorandum introduced into the public record, 
dated May 18, which summarizes a meeting between Mr. Dean and 
Mr. Haldeman — it was agreed by those gentlemen that the milk money 
would be used to pay the operating expenses of the citizens connnittee, 
the predecessors to the Committee To Ke-Elect the President. 

Yet, in this memorandum, 3 days later, Mr. Strachan reports to 
Mr. Haldeman that both you and Mr. Nunn suggest that it would be 
too risky and, therefore, the money from the milk people should 
not be used to pay those operating expenses. 

Do you remember that, and if so, do you recall the reasoning behind 
that?' 

Mr. Kalmbach. I'm not sure I remember that, but it could well have 
been that I was asked about it. or Mr. Nunn was asked about it and 
I was apprised of it. And I think that probably the reasoning in back 
of such a statement would be that if cliecks were written from these 
committees that had already reported to the Clerk of the House, that 
there would be the possibility the checks written in support of the 
then startup campaign in 1971 would be traced back to that commit- 
tee, and there the media and others would know that this was, in 
fact, milk money that was being contributed to the campaign. T think 
that's the reasoning in back of it, and it could well be, Mr. Weitz, that 
that was a statement that I made, but I just don't remember it. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, we've — you've alluded a number of times today 
to the problem of disclosure, the fact that certain contributors had the 
right, as you put it — and I want to speak to you for the time being — 
not to have their contributions publicized prior to the nomination. 



7605 

Now, with respect to the milk producers, we've all agreed and 
you've testified that the understanding was that they were reporting 
and therefore contributions should be kept separate. 

Now, my question is this, with respect to the citizens committee ex- 
penses what was the fear, or what was the concern, if the milk pro- 
ducers themselves were reporting to the Clerk of the House, if those 
contributions were linked to the citizens committee ? Was it the size, 
the timeliness of it, or some other reason ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, the reason is this. I think as I recall it, if the 
milk people had established, for example, a better Government com- 
mittee and there had been a $2,500 contribution by a particular milk 
trust to that committee, and that $2,500 sat in the bank account for that 
particular committee, the Clerk of the House, they would have been 
to conform with the requirements of the statute or whatever law was 
pertaining, that it would meet the requirements of the law if the trust 
would simply report to the Clerk of the House that a $2,500 pay- 
ment had been made to this particular committee. 

Now, there it would sit and that was the end of it. Now, if, in fact, 
there was a disbursement of $2,500 to an advertising group that was 
known to be doing advertising for the Nixon campaign, and that check 
was drawn in favor of that advertising group and the reporter found 
that check or knew about that disbursement, you could then track back 
and it would become evident that this $2,500, in fact, was a contribu- 
tion to the Nixon campaign, I think that was the reasoning, Mr. Weitz. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Haldeman agrees with the suggestions set forth 
that the money be kept separate and not used for such operating 
expenses, but then he writes — or this is what has been identified as 
his comment — "AVliat are they going to use the milk money for?" And 
I suppose my question to you is, do you know what your recommenda- 
tion was or what was in fact done with the milk money ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I think the thinking was, Mr. Weitz, that the — 
that these funds would be held just for later use in the campaign. 

Mr. Weitz. No decision was made ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I just don't think any decision was made. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, you've referred to the problem of disclosure via 
reporters and other means. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. The September 11 memo that I've already referred to — 
September 11, 1971, after the reference to the $90,000 a month com- 
mitment — goes on to discuss a concern about a report, an investigative 
report, by a Minneapolis Star reporter. And it goes on to refer to the 
fact that the previous day, which would have been September 10, you, 
Mr. Dean, Mr. Nunn, and Tom Evans discussed this development. 

Do you remember that meeting, or do you remember in general 
terms, in September of 1971, what discussions took place with reference 
to possible disclosure of the milk contributions ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. I've been asked about this, of course, but very 
evidently they did discuss this with me. I think there was a concern 
as to this disclosure and the effects on the forthcoming campaign. 

I don't recall that during this period that I had had any particular 
involvement with the milk people since from and after the time that 
Mr. Nunn had come upward and had assumed that responsibility. I 
think it was in May of 1971, and I think I was informed of it just as 



7606 

a general observation and that it was a matter of some concern just 
because of the publicity. And I don't know whether there was a concern 
that this might, in fact, stop the future contributions by the dairy 
industiy. 

But I don't have an independent recollection of it, but inasmuch as 
it is in this memorandum, I could well have been and I'm almost cer- 
tain that I was advised of it. But I don't remember other than thesp 
general observations, anything more about it. 

]\Ir. Weitz. Xow, in that connection, the record shows that after — 
at least with respect to these multiple committees established— that 
after September 10, no further contributions were made to the reelec- 
tion campaign through that medium. 

And my question is, do you recall any time when, in fact, it was made 
known to you that the contributions were being stopped or being 
slowed down, for whatever purpose? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, of course I've been asked that question and I 
don't recall it. I have a memory, of course, now as we get into 1972, 
that at some point, either November, December, or January, some 
point in that period, I met with a Mr. Jacobsen. And Mr. Jacobsen 
had been, or was then at that time for all — I'm not certain — a law part- 
ner of Mr. Semer's. And Mr. Jacobsen was a very pleasant and nice 
person and he made known — and I think this was in a meeting in 
January of 1972 — he made known to me several things. And I recall 
one meeting in January, and I'm not certain as to the date — I think it 
was in mid-January, or at some point mid or early January — that a 
number of points, one was that Mr. Jacobsen had been engaged by, I 
think, AMPI. And from that I assumed that Mr. Harrison was no 
longer active as one of the attorneys for AMPI, although I'm not cer- 
tain of that. 

I remember that the main purpose of the meeting, as I recall it, was 
to advise me that a Mr. George 5lehren had been appointed or elected 
as general manager of AMPI, replacing Mr. Nelson. 

That in spite of that change in management, when Mr. Nelson was 
then to become, I think, a consultant to AMPI rather than general 
manager, that AMPI would continue to want to be supportive of the 
President. 

I think I had a feeling from these conversations with Mr. Jacobsen 
and Mr. Nelson, that there was some disarray within the milk groups, 
or whatever, but I just — as I look back and try to reconstruct this, the 
main purpose of that meeting was to advise me of Mr. Mehren. I think 
it was also to advise me, and I think I also reported this to Mr. 
Strachan, that they would continue to make the contributions to the 
campaign. And I think they indicated to me, at this meeting — but I 
could be wrong — I think they indicated to me, at this meeting, that 
their pledge would be $1 million, rather than $2 million. And I had the 
feeling that the publicity — I think they had been irked, by the way, 
that these committees had been established in such a manner that there 
had been publicity. They were very concerned about the publicity, as 
I was. 

But they were reaffirming the fact that they would continue to sup- 
port the campaign. And, as I say, I think they told me at this meeting 
that they would contribute $1 million to the 1972 campaign and then 
scale it back from the $2 million that I understood in March of 1971. 



7607 

Mr. Weitz. Now, this gets us into 1972, and although I have a num- 
ber of questions on that meeting and subsequent meetings — Mr. San- 
ders, do you have questions as to 1971 ? 

Mr, Saxders. Yes. 

This pertains to your March 24 meeting with Nelson and Chotiner. 
Today, in telling us of this, you made mention of some remark at 
that meeting about a price announcement to be made the next day. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. Can you explain that for me ? 

Mr. Kaxmbach. I think as I remember it, that Mr. Chotiner, in 
telling me of the fact that Mr. Ehrlichman had asked him to advise 
me or relay to me the fact that they were reaflEirming their pledge 
of $2 million in contributions to the 1972 campaign, that this was 
that Mr. Chotiner also indicated, along with Mr. Nelson, an announce- 
ment as to the price support or parity problem. 

There was to be an announcement the next day and this was, in 
fact, linked to this reaffirmation of the $2 million pledge, or that is 
the way that I so understood it from that conversation. 

Mr. Sanders. Did it appear to you that Nelson knew, before the 
meeting with you, that there was to be a public announcement the next 
day, of the price support ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. My memory would be that I did understand that. 

Mr. Sanders. Did they give you any perception of how they knew 
there was to be an announcement ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I just — I'm not certain of that. I know that 
Mr. Chotiner had said that he had talked to Mr. Ehrlichman, and 
that Mr. Ehrlichman had asked him to advise me what evidently he 
had advised Mr. Ehrlichman, that the $2 million pledge was being 
reaffirmed. 

Mr. Sanders. You've just now said that the reaffirmation of the $2 
million pledge was linked to this price announcement ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Sanders. Would you be able to elaborate on the phraseology of 
Chotiner or Nelson as to how they were linked ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. I think the words were to the effect that 
Murray Chotiner had indicated that John Ehrlichman had asked 
him to see me and reaffirm this $2 million pledge, and I think, as 
I remember it, he was saying that this was in view of the fact that 
the announcement was to be made the following day, that he was 
reaffirming the pledge, and that's the linkage that I recall on it. 

Mr. Sanders. That's all I have. 

Mr. Weitz. Returning to 1972, you've described just a moment ago 
a meeting that you had with Mr. Jacobsen, you believe in the middle 
or first part of January 1972 ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Was Mr. Nelson in attendance at that meeting ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. The three of us met together, and I think it 
was either January 14 or January 7, 1 am not certain. 

Mr. Weitz. I think we have evidence that on January 14 the three 
of you met. Was this in California ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I'm not certain. 

Mr. Weitz. And that was 2 days following the replacement of 
Mr. Nelson by Dr. Mehren ? 



7608 

Mr. Kalmbach. Excuse me. Do your records tell you that we met in 
California ? 

]\f r. Weitz. Yes. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, that helps me. It must have been in California. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you tell us how you came to meet with Mr. Jacob- 
sen and Mr. Nelson ? Who first contacted you ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Just my memory is that Mr. Jacobsen first con- 
tacted me, and I don't have a good feeling on when that was, whether — 
how much earlier than January 14 it was. It could have been in 
December, or it could have been all the way back into November. But 
he contacted me and he indicated to me that he represented the, I 
think it was AMPI, and, further, that Milton Semer had been — I 
think he told me that the reason, not only that he was the attorney for 
AMPI, but that he was a law partner or former law partner of Mr. 
Semer. 

And it is also my recollection that, following my conversation with 
Mr. Jacobsen, the first meeting that I had with him, that I con- 
tacted Mr. Mitchell to make certain in my mind that it was all right 
for me to deal with Mr. Jacobsen, inasmuch as Mr. Semer was then 
either to be appointed or was or had been appointed the finance chair- 
man for Senator Muskie. 

Mr. Weitz. What was the Attorney General's response ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. And the Attorney General had no objection at all 
for me to deal with Mr. Jacobsen. 

Mr. Weitz. And as I understand it, and as reflected in the memos 
we already discussed, Mr. Nunn had taken over, sometime in the mid- 
dle of 1971, responsibility for arranging for the mechanics of the 
milk contributions. 

Can you tell us whether there was any particular reason you agreed 
to or were brought back in to meet with the milk producers in 1972 ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. All I can do is give you my best impression on that. 
I feel that they were, first of all, this publicity had thrown it all off 
the track, and I think they wanted to deal with someone that they 
thought was just looking at it from a standpoint of an attorney rep- 
resenting clients in Washington, that they thought that probably I was 
the one that they should deal with. And I think Mr. Jacobsen sought 
me out for that reason, and I think that probably Mr. Semer had told 
him that I had arranged for Mr. Semer to see several people in the 
White House or in the administration in 1969, and that Mr. Parr and 
Mr. Nelson would probably have informed him of our contacts in 1970 
and in 1971. 

So it seems to me that thev had a new lawyer, or a lawver that I 
had never known, that was involved before Mr. Jacobsen. He wanted 
to come back and he wanted to deal with me, and he knew I was a 
primary fundraiser for the campaign. And I think that's the back- 
ground to it. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, in a January 18, 1972, memorandum from Strachan 
to Haldeman, political matters memorandum, item No. 1, refers to 
the fact that you met with Messrs. Jacobsen and Nelson on January 14 
and I take it that would be the meeting that you just described.* 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 



•See strachan exhibit No. 10, p. 75()2. 



7609 

Mr. Weitz. Now, it goes on to say that Kalmbach would take over 
this project and he would discuss it with the Attorney General on 
January 20. Would that be consistent with your recollection of dis- 
cussing it with Mr. Mitchell after you met with those gentlemen in 
California ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, it would be. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, it goes on to say that Kalmbach informed Colson 
of the meeting. This is the January 14 meeting, but would not tell Col- 
son who asked him to see Jacobsen. 

Then, my question is this: Do you have any recollection as to 
whether someone, perhaps, in the administration suggested that you 
meet with Mr. Jacobsen, or that Mr. Jacobsen represented to you that 
someone had suggested that the two of you meet? 

Mr. Kalmbach. My memory on that is that Mr. Jacobsen came to 
me and just introduced himself to me as, I say, a law partner or former 
law partner of Mr. Semer. I don't recall that he said he was coming to 
me as a result of any direction to do so from Mr. Mitchell or anyone, 
or it's not like my 1969 meeting with Mr. Semer. 

I felt that by this time that Mr. Harrison was probably no longer 
active. They were not dealing with Mr. Colson, I don't think, but I'm 
not certain of that. But for some reason, and I think it was because of 
Mr. Semer and Mr. Colson being unfriendly, that I just felt that, 
inasmuch as Colson had been so much involved in early 1971 and all, 
that he would be apprised of this, but not told it was Jacobsen, if I 
remember that memo right. 

Is that consistent with that memo ? 

Mr. Weitz. Well, it is consistent with that statement, and also the 
previous sentence does refer to the fact that you were going to talk to 
the Attorney General because of the relationship between Jacobsen 
and Semer, and Semer's role in the Muskie campaign. 

AVas there also — you mentioned an antipathy, as you characterized 
it, between Mr. Semer, or at least some bad relations between Mr. 
Semer and Mr. Colson. Did you understand what the relationship 
was between Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Colson ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think Mr. Mitchell had a great deal of antipathy 
toward Mr. Colson. I think I remember him at one time characterizing 
Mr. Colson as a walking time bomb. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it Mr. Mitchell's counseling, or was any of his 
involvement in this matter — was there any involvement by Mr. Mitch- 
ell other than what you've referred to ? 

And would that have, if so, would that have in any way led to the 
decision to keep Colson only informed on a limited basis, in addition 
to the role of Jacobsen ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall that. I don't recall that Mr. Mitchell 
was instrumental in having Mr. Jacobsen see me, but it could well have 
been. I just don't recall it. 

Also, I want to go back here and say that the antipathy, I think, 
between Mr. Colson and Mr. Semer was expressed to me by Mr. Colson 
on Mr. Colson's side, and I don't remember Mr. Semer ever being 
critical or negative toward Mr. Colson. 

Mr. Weitz. I believe the record shows that on January 24, 1972, 
about 10 days after your first meeting in January of that month of 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 



7610 

that ye<ir with the milk people, the Nader v. Bufz litigation was filed. 
It challenged the validity of the pre\'ious year's establishment of the 
milk supports. 

And we have a February 1, 1972. memorandum from Strachan to 
Haldeman and, again, a political matters memo* that refers, in part, 
to the cutting back of the $2 million commitment to $1 million, to 
which you already referred. But it also goes on to say that "you will 
accept the risk'' — "you" being Kalmbach — "will accept the risk of 
being subpenaed by the court in connection with the Xader milk suit." 

In addition to what you have told us already today, was there any- 
thing else that came to your attention, either at that time or later, 
that bore on the setting of milk price supports in 1971, and any rela- 
tion with that to subsequent contributions or subsequent activities by 
the dair\' people? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I don't recall anything further at this time. 
Mr. Weitz, in addition to what I've testified to. 

Mr. Weftz. AYhat risks did you envision, or what concerns did you 
have at that point, if you had them ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, I don't know that I had any real concerns at 
all. I had been involved in eflPectins: the legal mechanics and proce- 
dures, and I don't remember that T was involved in any substantive 
discussions in the areas in which the Nader v. Butz suit would be in- 
quiring, and I didn't feel that if I was deposed that it would be — that 
it was something that I didn't feel would be particularly harmful. At 
least I had that feeling. 

Mr. Weitz. Xow, 2 days after that memorandum on February 3, 
the record — we have testimony that you met with Dr. Mehren. Mr. 
Nelson, and Mr. Jacobsen and several other law partners in Los 
Angeles. 

[A brief recess was taken.] 

Mr. Weitz. Back to the February 3 meeting. I was about to say, 
before our break, do you recall that meeting with ]\Ir. Nelson, Dr. 
Mfehren, Mr. Jacobsen, and two of your partners? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I do. 

Mr. Weitz. Those partners were Frank DeMarco and Bob Olsen? 

Mr. Kalimbach. That's correct. 

Mr. Weitz. What was the purpose of that meeting ? 

Mr. KALiiBACH. The purpose of that meeting, as I remember it, was 
that Mr. Jacobsen had talked to me, I think it was in Januar\% and 
asked me to meet with Dr. Mehren, who was then the new general 
manager, to be appointed the general manager of A]\IPI. And he 
just wanted me to get acquainted with him. And they flew out, as I 
remember, from Texas to California, and we met in our Los Angeles 
office about 11 or 11 :30 in the morninsf on the 3d and after a rela- 
tively short time adjourned to the Jonathan Club for lunch. And we 
said goodby to them on the street corner, where they left to return to 
the airport to fly back to Texas. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there a discussion, either in your offices or at lunch, 
as to contributions ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't remember too specifically on this. I think 
I indicated to them at the luncheon table that anv contributions would 



•See strachan exhibit No. 11, p. 7503. 



7611 

be appreciated. And the first time I ever met Dr. Mehren was then, 
and I made it just plain to them and at some length, because I had 
never met Dr. Mehren before. 

I went into quite a little statement at the outset that you have to 
understand that there was no quid pro quo involved, because I was, 
frankly, concerned, and I wanted to be sure that he understood that. 
And I recited that at that meeting. 

Mr. Weitz, Was there any particular reason for that concern? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I didn't know what they wanted to talk about, 
and I didn't know what might come up later. And by this time there 
had been the Nader-Butz suit filed. And there had been publicity in 
September, October. I frankly was not enthused about handling these — 
this particular contributor group. I had taken it on because I had 
been asked to do so, but I made it clear, I think, to Gordon Strachan. 
I think I made it clear to Bob Haldeman, either directly or through 
Gordon Strachan, that I would prefer not to handle this assignment. 
It was something I just really would have preferred not to do. But 
because I liked Jake Jacobsen and because I felt that I would be 
willing to meet with this man, I agreed to meet him out in Los Angeles. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, our records show that in 1971 there was an ongoing 
investigation by the Justice Department of the milk producers, and 
particularly Associated Milk Producers, AMPI, that there was some, 
in the fall of 1971, some concern expressed by Mr. Colson to Mr. Halde- 
man about the impact of that investigation on their relationship with 
the milk producers, possibly some discussion between Mr. Haldeman 
and Mr. Mitchell on that score also. 

Subsequently, I think the record also shows that at some time in 
late November 1971, Mr. Mitchell rejected a request to have a grand 
jury impaneled. Ultimately, on February 1, 1972, 2 days before the 
meeting you just described in TiOS Angeles, a civil suit was filed against 
Associated Milk Producers by the Justice Department. 

Now, my question is this: Wasn't there some concern, and if it 
was not expressed by you, at least to you, or awareness, that this 
increased activity in January and February of contacts or attempted 
contacts by the milk producers was in some way connected to the 
antitrust suit ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, I've been asked questions in this area, and my 
memory on it is just not too good. I remember that I talked with 
Mr. Mitchell back and forth through this latter part of January and 
in early February. This was just shortly before Mr. Stans came aboard 
as finance chairman. There were a number of things we discussed. 

It would be my best memory that at some point in these discussions 
there was some mention of the fact of the antitrust action being filed, 
the fact that there was a great deal of displeasure expressed, I think, 
by some of the milk people. And for some reason, Chicago comes into 
my mind. 

Mr. Weitz. I think the investigation was run out of the Chicago 
office. 

Mr. Kalivibach. And I think Mr. Mitchell was indicating to me that, 
although I was dealing with these people, that I ought to understand 
that they were probably upset. 

Now,' I don't know whether he indicated to me that he was being 
talked to by Mr. Colson. It just — I don't have a really good memory 



7612 

as to these discussions, other than that I was advised, I think by Mr. 
Mitchell, of these ongoing things. 

Mr. Weitz. In that connection, were you asked either directly or 
was it your impression that Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Stans, or perhaps 
even Mr. Haldeman, were asking you to, in a sense, soothe over the 
wounds of the dairy people and still see if something could be sal- 
vaged from your contributions, from the earlier commitment? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think essentially that is right. I think I indicated 
to Mr. Strachan, as a result of my meeting earlier with Mr. Nelson 
in Los Angeles, now, as you refresh me with your record, that I indi- 
cated to Mr. Strachan that it was a good meeting, in the sense that the 
milk people were reaffirming their decision to support the campaign, 
even though there was a cutback from $2 million pledged to $1 million. 

Now, I ought to go on and indicate, because it is from my memory, 
now, again it has been refreshed, that Mr. Jacobsen and I worked out 
a balance of the pledged amount of $750,000, which I had come upon, 
as I remember the figures here, that there was approximately $250,000 
that had been contributed up to that time, and that if they were re- 
affirming the pledge of $1 million now, or affirming the pledge of $1 
million, modified from $2 million, that left $750,000 still to be paid. 

Now, I remember that I advised Mr. Stans of that. And I have a 
memory that I worked out a month-by-month schedule with Mr. Jacob- 
sen, as to the manner in which the milk people would get these contri- 
butions over to us. I think that most of those contributions were to be 
go<-ten ovpr to us prior to April 7, but some would be gotten over to us 
after April 7. 

Mr. An^eitz. Do you recall at the meeting in February in California 
any reference either by you or Mr. DeMarco to the schedule which 
might entail, for example, one-third payment in February, one-third 
payment in March, one-quarter just prior to April 7, and the remainder 
after April 7 ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. You mean with Mr. Jacobsen ? 

Mr. Weffz. Mr. Jacobsen and/or Dr. Mehren or Mr. Nelson. 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall that. 

Mr. Weftz. Is that consistent with your recollection of discussions 
with Mr. Jacobsen alone? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, it is. And perhaps with Mr. Nelson. But I don't 
have any recollection at all of such a discussion with Dr. INIehren. And, 
of course, not at all with Mr. Olsen or Mr. DeMarco. 

Mr. Weitz. ^Vlio was to be the recipient of those contributions prior 
to April 7? 

Mr. Kalmbach. The various committees, the names of which we 
would ffive the milk producers. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any negative reaction ? Was this plan, whether 
or not its specific amounts, but this general plan of committees to re- 
ceive additional contributions mentioned in the February 3 meeting? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't remember that it was. 

Mr. Weitz. And you don't recall Dr. Mehren reacting negatively 
to the thought of additional committees receiving contributions prior 
to April 7? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall Dr. Mehren reacting negatively at all. 
I think there was some discussion about the complexities of campaign 



7613 

finance and all, but I don't remember that we talked at all about 
amounts or a timetable or that sort of thing. 

jNIr. WErrz. "When did these discussions with Mr. Jacobsen, alone, 
with respect to timetable and so forth, take place ? 

]Mr. IvALiMiiAcii. I think they took place in January, but it could 
have been in February. I'm just not certain on that. 

Mr. WErrz. There's a February 16, 1972, memo from Strachan to 
Haldeman, political matters memo, that has one short paragraph re- 
ferring to the milk money. And it says that "Kalmbach is working with 
the milk people to increase the $233,000 currently banked to $1 million 
byxVpril7." 

And that's the arrangement that you referred to, the approximately 
$750,000 remaining balance ? 

Mr. Kalimbacii. Yes, and I think that memo, it may be that he told 
me about the $1 million from $2 million in Febiniary instead of Jan- 
uary. But my best memory is that it was in January. 

Sir. Weitz. I think that's consistent with the February 1 memo that 
already cuts it back to $1 million. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That's correct. But as I think about this carefully, 
it would be my memory that there was some of that $750,000 that would 
be contributed after the April 7 date. 

iNIr. Weitz. Was there any reference, either in the Februar}^ 8 meet- 
ing or these other meetings, meeting or meetings, with Mr. Jacobsen, 
to any substantive problems, including the antitrust suit ? 

Mr. Kalmbacit. You mean at this meeting ? 

Mr. Weitz. The February 3 meeting or these other meeting or meet- 
ings with Mr. Jacobsen to work out the details of the contributions. 

]\Ir. Kalmbach. I just don't remember any. It could well have be^n 
that there Avas a mention of the filing of such a suit, but I just don't 
have a memory on it. 

jNlr. Wei rz. But, as you say, you were already aware of that through 
conversation either with Mv. Stans or Mr. Mitchell ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. And I think it would be probably more likely 
Mr. Mitchell than Mr. Stans. 

Mr. Weitz. The February 1 memo we referred to, which talks about 
the $2 million and the $1 million and the Nader suit 

Mr. Kalmbach. Right. 

Mr. Weitz. It is indicated there that Haldeman was to discuss the 
matter with the Attorney General, and there's a reference or talking 
paper for a Februaiy 9 meeting. And although there's no meeting in 
the logs for that date, there is around that time, between Mr. Mitchell 
and J\Ir. Haldeman. 

Did you ever find out or get any further guidance from either Mr. 
Haldeman or ]Mr. Mitchell as to what they wanted you to do with 
respect to the milk people or any further or specific references you can 
think of to the antitrust suit ? 

Mr. Kal:mbach. No, I don't remember that, jSIr. Weitz. I don't— 
I didn't have any feeling that I was to, that I was expected to talk to 
anybody a])out the antitrust and that sort of thing. My sole dealings 
with Mr. Jacobsen and with Mr. Nelson was to work out a timetable 
for this $750,000 to be received. I know that I, during tliis period, I 
Avas concerned, as I've expressed, about my dealing with the milk 



7614 

people. I felt that the publicity and all was not worth, frankly, the 
money to be received, and this led up to a second meeting with Dr. 
Mehren. And I think I only met with him twice, but I don't remember 
any other time but the second meeting, the second meeting with Mr. 
Mehren in mid-March. 

Mr. Weitz. You do recall meeting with him in mid-March 1972? 

Mr. KalmbiAch. I think it was in mid-March. I'm not certain of 
that, but that's my best memory, and it could have been later. But my 
best memory of it is in mid-March. 

Mr. Weitz. Would it have been before April 7 ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That's my memory. I was not in Washington after 
April 7 until early May, and then I was in Washington, I think, in 
early May for one period before I left on a trip. And I thought and 
wondered to myself if I could have met with Dr. Mehren in early 
May. But my best memory is that I met with he and Mr. Jacobsen and 
Mr. Nelson in their suite at the Madison in mid-March. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, I believe the records of the Madison Hotel indi- 
cate that the only time in March, and even all of April 1972 when 
the four of you were all registered at the Madison Hotel was on 
March 15 and 16, 1972; and I take it that would be consistent with 
your recollection ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Absolutely consistent. 

Mr. Weitz. I think we also have independent evidence that the 
meeting — independent testimony that the meeting took place on the 
16th. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That's very helpful, because that's my memory. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you tell us how you came to meet with them on 
that date ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, I can, because when I left, and we said goodbye 
to each other on February 3 in Los Angeles, I left it with them, and 
particularly with Mr. Jacobsen, that I would be willing to meet with 
them again, at their convenience, as a followup to that just-get- 
acqiiainted meeting with Mr. Mehren, Dr. Mehren. And it would be my 
memory that Mr. Jacobsen called me or talked to me — oh, a few days 
prior, or whatever it was prior, to the March 16 meeting. I think that's 
the date you said. And I said, fine, that I would meet with them. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he call you long-distance ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't remember. 

Mr. WErrz. But he was setting up a meeting, rather than by haj^pen- 
stance running into you, and asking you if he could meet with you for 
a few minutes ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That would be my memory, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he 

Mr. Kalmbach. He could have been that casual. It could have been 
that he ran into me. But my best memory is that he called me — but he 
could have just seen me someplace and said that we're here in Wash- 
ington, and let's meet. 

Now, I went into that meeting convinced of my own mind that I 
didn't want to deal with these people any more. And this is consistent 
with two or three other things that I was doing at this time, where I 
felt contributions had been offered and, in fact, had been received by 
the campaign, that we should not deal with particular contributors. 
Not that these contributors were — ^anything was wrong with them, but 



7615 

I felt the publicity for the campaign, the negatives of that far out- 
weighed the actual funds received, and I went into that meeting with 
tAvo purposes in mind, and I made up my mind I was only going to be 
there for 5 or 10 minutes. One, that I was going to tell them that, as 
far as I was concerned, we were not interested in receiving any more 
funds from AMPI and the people representative of that meeting ; and 
second, that if they felt they had a pledge outstanding to the campaign, 
that that pledge was, in fact, abrogated. And I did that. 

I went in and met with both of those points. At that time, I was the 
associate finance chairman of the campaign, I felt I had the authority, 
on my own volition, to abrogate the pledge ; and I felt I had authority, 
on my own volition, to tell them that I would not deal any longer with 
the milk people. 

Mr. Weitz. We have a copy of an article by Jack Anderson, dated 
February '29, 1972, and the headline is "Secret Memo Bares Mitchell- 
ITT Move." I'd like to mark this as exhibit 2. 

[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Kalmbach ex- 
hibit No. 2, for identification.*] 

Mr. Weitz. I believe this is the first public article about what has 
come to be known as the ITT scandal, which led to a number of dis- 
closures that year. Was this one of the principal, or one of the reasons — 
this disclosure in connection with the ITT matter in late February or 
]March that led to your decision not to accept any further milk con- 
tributions? 

]Mr. Kalmbacti. No. I don't remember. Mr. AYeitz, that that entered 
into my thinking. I felt that whatever the ITT — any purpose relative 
at all to ITT had no relationship, particularly, at all with the milk 
fund. 

Mr. Sanders. Finally, to see that we're finally getting Jack Ander- 
son into these hearings, even though indirectly 

Mr. Weitz. What about the antitrust suit that Avas then pending? 
Wasn't there, at least in your awareness, from either Mr. Stans or 
probably Mr. Mitchell, didn't that present — or, perhaps on a less 
glamorous scale, the same type of problem as the milk producers? 

INIr. Kalmbach. Yes, it would have, and I have a particular memory 
here, Mr. Weitz, of a telephone call on or about April 4 that I made 
to Dr. Mehren at the request, I think, of jNIr. Jacobsen. And when I 
called him, it was just 3 days before the new law took effect, and 3 days 
before I left to return to California and resigned as associate finance 
chairman of the campaign. I recall that Mr. Jacobsen said — asked me 
to call Dr. Mehren, and it seems to me he was in Texas, or wherever — 
San Antonio or wherever ; and when I called, it's my very best recollec- 
tion that he indicated to me that concern about the antitrust situation 
then pending, and indicated to me he would like to have me intercede 
with someone at the "Wliite House on their behalf, at least to indicate 
their concern or whatever. 

jNIr. Weitz. Let's be more specific. They were concerned, and they 
were expressing their concern ? 

IMr. Kalmbach. That's correct. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you understand that they were expressing their 
concern to people in the White House already ? 

•See p. 7624. 



7616 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't remember. I felt that there was just kind 
of a general tone of frustration after Dr. Mehren's — in Dr. Mehren's 
voice. 

]\Ir. Weitz. Hadn't Mr. IMitchell already indicated that they were — 
the milk people — were concerned about the antitrust suit? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. So therefore, he was aware ? 

]Mr. Kalmbach. My recollection is that ]Mr. Mitchell expressed that 
to me in late January or early Februa^J^ 

Mr. Weitz. And therefore, at least, he was aware. And I believe, 
that period you mentioned, he was Attorney General then, that he 
was aware of their concern or their displeasure? 

]\Ir. Kalmbach. Right. 

Mr. Weitz. What did you understand Mr. Jacobsen actually to be 
asking vou to do ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Again, I'm giving you my very best memory on this, 
but my feeling was that he was asking me to talk to somebody at the 
White House. I don't remember that he mentioned any particular 
person's name, but to talk to somebody in the White House on their 
behalf, as to this antirust problem. And I also had the understanding, 
or the feeling at the time, that they were about to make another con- 
tribution just prior to April 7. 

Mr. Weitz. To the reelection campaign ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes ; and this was following my very abrupt break- 
off of conversations with him on March 16, and consistent with that 
breakoff, my memory is that I advised Dr. Mehren that I would not 
intercede and would not do anything in this area, and that our dis- 
cussion, our telephone discussion, terminated rather abruptly. 

Mr. Weitz. Let me, if I might, go through this slowly, so that we 
can extract the extent of your information on this. Do you recall, in 
the conversations, where Mr. Jacobsen — I take it he calls you? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That's my memory. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there only one call, with both Mr. Jacobsen and 
Dr. Mehren calling you ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think I placed the call to Dr. Mehren, that Mr. 
Jacobsen asked me to call Dr. Mehren. 

Mr. Weitz. Let me indicate to you what we have in our records, 
and maybe we can refresh your recollection this way. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Thank you. 

Mr. Weitz. And reconstruct it. 

We have records that indicate that on March 31, 1972, there is a 
call charged to your credit card, or the credit card you were using, that 
came from the Republican National Committee to Mr. Jacobsen's home 
telephone ; a completed call from Mr. Jacobsen using tlie credit card 
that you used for the Republican National Committee. On April 4, 
that is 4 days later, there are two calls charged to the same credit 
card, one to Mr. Jacobsen's home telephone again, and the second 
to Dr. Mehren's home telephone. 

Now, my question is, there appears to be three calls. I take it the 
third call would reflect the call from you to Dr. Mehren on April 4. 
Is that correct ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That would be fair. 



7617 

Mr. Weitz. Could you reconstruct them for us? Could you recon- 
struct what took place prior to that telephone call; that is, particu- 
larly, the reason for and the substance of the two telephone calls to 
Mr. Jacobsen? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No; other than it's my memory that I called Mr. 
Jacobsen, or Mr. Jacobsen and I talked, because he wanted me to talk 
to Dr. Mehren. 

Mr. Weitz. With regard to the antitrust suit and contributions? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I'm not sure if Mr. Jacobsen mentioned the antitrust 
suit or antitrust matter when we talked. 

Mr, Weitz. But certainly, that was a subject of your conversation 
with Dr. Mehren ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is my memory. 

Mr. Weitz. And can you tell us, as carefully as you can, whether 
Doctor — excuse me — Mr. Jacobsen referred, if not to the antitrust suit, 
then to the interest and contributions prior to April 7, or was his 
telephone call merely to set up the later call to Dr. Mehren? 

Mr. Kalmbach. It would be my memory that Mr. Jacobsen called 
me, or we talked, and that he was setting up for me to call Dr. Mehren. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, can you tell us, as carefully as you can, what took 
place in the telephone conversation with Dr. Mehren ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, my memory on that telephone conversation is 
that he was — ^he expressed a great concern about the antitrust matter 
that was proceeding, and expressed a desire for me to be helpful to him 
or to AMPI, and I understood — and this is my very best recollection 
of this — ^that he wanted me to intercede with someone in the admin- 
istration. 

Mr. Weitz. In the White House ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. And I understood it to be in the "\\Tiite House. 

Mr. Weitz. This was Dr. Mehren talking, and not necessarily Mr. 
Jacobsen ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That's correct. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he mention contributions ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't remember if he did or not, but I had the 
feeling that he was ready to make a contribution of some size to the 
campaign, and that he was calling me just before he did it. I had that 
impression. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you also have the impression that the contributions 
were to facilitate or encourage you to make the contact to the White 
House or the administration ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, we have evidence that on April 4, checks totaling 
$150,000 ; in fact, 30 checks, each in the amount of $5,000, were drawn 
by AMPI's political trust, with the name of the recipient committee 
left blank, and those checks were ultimately voided, we understand, in 
a day or two following April 4. We also have some evidence, some 
testimony that as much as $300,000, by perhaps all thre<. dairy politi- 
cal trusts, were contemplated as contributions prior to April 7, right 
in that April period. 

Do either of those figures, or an^ of those matters, refresh your 
recollection as to either the amounts, the mechanics, or anything else 
that either Mr. Jacobsen or Dr. Mehren discussed with you ? 



7618 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't remember that we discussed any amounts. 
The $150,000 or $300,000, that doesn't refresh me at all. The fact that 
checks were voided would be consistent with my conversation with 
Dr. Mehren, or my recollection of my conversation with Dr. Mehren 
on April 4. 

Mr. Weitz. It was your understanding or your impression that a 
substantial contribution was contemplated prior to April 7 ? 

Mr. KALMBACH. Absolutely. Now, whether I gained that under- 
standing or impression from Dr. Mehren or from Mr. Jacobsen, or 
from both of them, I can't be certain. 

Mr. Weitz. Did either Dr. Mehren or Mr. Jacobsen, in any way, 
indicate whether they checked with or discussed this contribution just 
prior to April 7, and called to you and asked for your help with anyone 
in the White House or the administration ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't have a memory that they did, or that I had 
that impression. I wanted to — I had the feeling that there was a great 
amount of — and I don't know whether I got this from Mr. Jacobsen 
in that call or not — but I had the impression that there was very 
mixed emotions among the milk people as to whether that should be 
contributed at all, or that they should contribute at all to the campaign. 
And that's just an impression, but a very strong impression, that there 
was a difference of opinion among the milk people. But this was 
subsequent to the March 16 meeting that, I think, took place on 
March 16. And my action in talking to Dr. Mehren on the 4th, and 
my recollection of it, is consistent with my actions on March 16. 

Mr. Weitz. Either following your March 16 meeting, or the April 4 
telephone conversation, did you discuss or in any way report this 
matter to anyone in the Wliite House or the administration, or such 
as Mr. Mitchell in the campaign ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't remember that I did. I went home to Cali- 
fornia on the 7th of April. I did not come back to Washington until, 
I think, the first week of May, and then I left on a trip that took me — 
that was 3 weeks, and I don't recall that I discussed it. 

Mr. AVeitz. Mr. Ehrlichman has testified here that at some point, 
and he is not clear when — although he thought it was much earlier, 
such as in 1969 — he thought that you had reported to him that the milk 
people, from whom you had received the contribution, were seeking 
a quid pro quo. And I am paraphrasing, but I think I am being fair 
in the paraphrasing — they were interested in somehow making over- 
tures regarding a quid pro quo, and because of that, you had cut off 
contact with them. And I think he mentioned this in connection with 
Mr. Semer. 

Now, let me ask you several questions. First, do you recall any 
discussions with Mr. Ehrlichman in connection with cutting off milk 
money because of the possibility, or an overture of a quid pro quo ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. This refreshes me, because I remember very 
clearly at one meeting I had with Mr. Ehrlichman, and certainlv not 
in 1969, absolutely not in 1969. But I remember in 1972, and I think 
what Mr. Ehrlichman has testified to is consistent with this, that I 
met with Mr. Ehrlichman. and I told him that I had broken off 
with the milk people, and he said, that was good judgment. 

Mr. Weitz. And did you mention, in that connection, that it was 
because of a possibility or an overture for a quid pro quo? 



7619 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I don't remember that I did. I just indicated 
that I was concerned about the publicity on their side, and the pub- 
licity on our side, and I don't remember that I mentioned any quid 
pro quo, but I just told him that I had broken it off. 

Mr. Weitz. You may not have mentioned a quid pro quo, but let me 
put the question to you this way. This is no longer 1970, where early 
money or large contributions might be an embarrassment. This is also 
not a private contributor whose contributions would be totally anony- 
mous, as opposed to some of the individuals. 

My question is this : In March or April of 1972, although there was 
an interest, pre- April 7, even for the milk producers, was your con- 
cern with respect to their possible contributions and the appearances 
created by that any greater than, or caused for any other reason other 
than just a large contributor prior to April 7, or did it go to some 
substantive policies, or some other similar reason ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, it could be this, Mr. Weitz, as I think about 
it. It could be that I anticipated a request that if they gave additional 
contributions, that they would come back to me with a request for me 
to intercede with Justice or with Jolin Ehrlichman, or somebody. And 
maybe I anticipated a request for a quid pro quo, and that may be the 
explanation for it. But in my conversation with Mr. Ehrlichman, and 
I think this is the time I told him I had broken it off, John Ehrlich- 
man said, "Herb, that's good judgment," and that was the end of it. 
But it would be my memory that I did not — I had not been asked to 
intercede in any antitrust matter at that time. I seem to have a memory 
that Dr. Mehren, when I talked to him on April 4, wanted me to 
intercede. 

Mr. Weitz. It was clear at that time ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That's my recollection, and this is consistent with 
Mr. Ehrlichman 's memory, except that Mr. Ehrlichman, if he relates 
that back to 1969, that is not true; because when I talked to him, and 
talked to others, about Mr. Semer, at that time there was absolutely 
no expression on the part of anyone that this is something that should 
not be done. 

Mr. Weitz. Following April 7, do you recall any further contacts 
with representatives of the dairy industry ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think I met with a man by the name of Ben Mor- 
gan in Los Angeles with Mr. Jacobsen, because Mr. Jacobsen was rep- 
resenting that man, and I just simply said that I'll be glad to meet 
with you. But it was a social meeting and nothing else. 

Mr. Weitz. No particular solicitation or pledges? 

Mr, Kalmbach. No ; I don't remember any. 

Mr. AVeitz. In your records which you provided to the committee, 
there is a notation on May 1, 1972: At 11:30 a.m., Jake Jacobsen. 
Would that have been the meeting with Mr. Morgan and Mv. 
Jacobsen ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. It might be, but I'm not certain. Also, Mr. Jacob- 
sen at that time was working, I think, with -John Connally, and I had 
been up to New York, and had obtained a contribution from — now, I 
don't know if it's this time or at another time, but I'm trying to relate 
it to that date— from Mr. Watson, Tom Watson of IBM, who is a 
Democrat. And Tom Watson indicated to me that he would be willing 
to be prominent in a Democrats for Nixon organization. And I think 



7620 

I advised both John Connally and, I think, Mr. Jacobsen, although 
I'm not certain of that, that that may have been that meeting, 

Mr. Weitz. In March of 1972, by the way, in connection particvilarly 
with your meeting of March 16 with the dairy people, did they refer 
to anyone else they had talked to, or attempted to talk to, and I would 
include in that question Mr. Connally ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. I don't ever remember 

Mr. Weitz. It was just a brief meeting, in which you basically said 
your piece? 

Mr. Kalmbach. It was 5 or 10 minutes, and then I was gone. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, we ha"v^ testimony that, at your meeting with Mr. 
Morgan, which was placed, probably, in May or June — it may very 
well have been this May 1 meeting. But, in any event 

Mr. INIoRGAN. Make sure it's Ben Morgan. 

Mr. Weitz. Ben Morgan, of Dairymen, Inc.. that at the end of the 
meeting, you and the other gentlemen went to the airport, and after 
Mr. Moro^an denarted, Mr. Jacobsen stayed behind. Do you remember 
that sequence of events ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall anvthing in particular you discussed with 
Mr. Jacobsen, apart from Mr. Morgan ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I do not. I just liked him as a person, and I don't 
recall that we discussed anything. He was very well aware of the way I 
felt. 

INIr. Weitz. Did you become aware later that Dairymen, Inc., and the 
third of the three co-ops, Mid-America Dairvmen, made contribu- 
tions to the Finance Committee To Re-elect the President ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. At a later time, I became aware that contribu- 
tions were made at election time. But I was not inA'olverl in t^ose. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you also become aware, at a later time, that con- 
tributions were made by the trusts of those two organizations to Demo- 
crats for Nixon ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I have no recollection of bein.<r aware of that. I knew 
that Jake Jacobsen was working with John Connally. and I would 
have assumed that thev would have contributed to the Democrats for 
Nixon program. But I was not aware of that, and did not stay close 
to that picture. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Jake Jacobsen ever ask you. after this April 4 tele- 
phone conversation or this meeting with INIorgan. to renew the attempt 
to have the finance committee or Democrats for Nixon accept contri- 
butions from the dairy people from his or from Dr. IVIehren's orga- 
nization? 

Mr. Kalmbach. T don't remember that he did. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you become aware that, later on in 1972, Lee Nunn 
made a solicitation, or met with Dr. INfehren ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I became aware of that much subsequent to that. 

Mr. Weitz. You were not aware contemporaneouslv of either Lee 
Nunn referring to you. or Jake Jacobsen, or anyone else ? 

Mr, Kalmbach, I don't remember I^e Nunn talking to me about 
that, and I learned about that much subsequent to the time, I think 
he went to Texas, I was so told that he did. 



7621 

Mr. Weitz. Did you learn whether or not it was subsequently that 
he was soliciting or requesting the three-quarters of a million dollars 
that had not been contributed prior to April 7? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I learned of that subsequent to this, and I did not 
know about this at the time. I have no recollection of knowing about 
this at that time at all. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know whether, in fact, the money was con- 
tributed ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I do not. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Sanders ? 

Mr. Sanders. Have you ever met John Butterbrodt? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall that I have. 

Mr. Sanders. Or have you ever talked to him by telephone ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't recall such conversation. I have no recol- 
lection of ever meeting or talking to him. 

Mr. Sanders. In your telephone conversation with Dr. Mehren on 
April 4, can you recall his reaction or reply after you gave him an 
indication that you would not intercede at the White House ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, as I said, Mr. Sanders, in my earlier testi- 
mony today, I had the feeling that first, he was — it was somewhat of 
an abrupt termination of our discussions, and one of disappointment 
and the feeling that we were just breaking off. Now, that is consistent, 
of course, with my March 16 meeting with Dr. Mehren, ]Mr. Nelson, 
and Mr. Jacobsen. 

Mr. Sanders. But do you have any recollection of any remarks by 
him which would have given you some insight into what he intended 
to do thereafter ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No. I just felt that he was just signing off. I just 
felt that he was kind of giving up and signing off, and here you peo- 
ple are asking for contributions and you're not willing to help. I'm 
not saying that this is what he said, but this was the gist of what I 
got out of that conversation, and it doesn't make sense, or something 
like that. It just terminated the conversation. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you give him any reason to think that there might 
be some consideration given to his request ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I did not. 

Mr. Sanders. Or that you might even make some inquiry for him? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, sir, I did not, and I have no memory at all of 
doing so. And my memory of that is consistent with what I did on 
March 16 at that meeting. 

Mr. Sanders. Between the time that you spoke with Jacobsen, on 
or about the 4th of April and the time you called Dr. Mehren, did you 
talk with anyone in the administration ? That is 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, I don't recall that I did. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you advise anyone within the administration? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I'm sorry. Mi'. Sanders. You're talking as to this 
conversation ? 

Mr. Sanders. Yes. 

iNIr. Kalmbach. I do not recall that I talked to anybody about my 
conversation with Mr. Jacobsen prior to the meeting on the 4th. 

Mr. Sanders. In your April 4 conversation with Dr. Mehren, did 
you advise anyone within the administration of your conversation 
with him ? 



7&22 

Mr. Kalmbach. There, I'm confused a little bit, and this is the 
same question, in a way, that Mr. Weitz asked. I do have a recollection, 
and it was refreshed by Mr. Weitz, telling me of John Ehrlichman's 
statement in an earlier deposition. I do have a recollection that I 
talked to John Ehrlichman and told him that I told the milk people 
that I'm abrogating whatever pledge they think they have still out- 
standing, and I was done with it; and that John Ehrlichman said 
to me, Herb, that's good judgment. And that's my clear recollection. 

Now, I do not recall, Mr. Sanders, with any real clarity whether 
that was after the March 16 meeting, or after the April 4 telephone 
call. I just can't get a good fix on it. 

Mr. Sanders. Aside from your recollections about the conversation 
with Ehrlichman, do you have any recollection of talking with any- 
one else after the conversation with Mehren; that is, anyone within 
the administration ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, sir, I do not have any recollection of so doing. 

Mr. Sanders. Now, the telephone records as read to you by Mr. Weitz 
showing charges to your phone credit card account for calls from 
you to Jacobsen and Mehren on the 4th, just to try to develop some 
refreshing of your recollection as to why the records show you called 
Jacobsen when you have told us that you think he called you, could 
it be that he may have called for you and you were not there, and you 
were returning his call ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That would be my memory. You know, again, this 
is consistent with what I did on the 16th of March in breaking off 
with these people. It would be my memory that I called Dr. Mehren 
at the request of Mr. Jacobsen, and it would also be my memory thaf 
I called, if I made a call to Mr. Jacobsen, it was because he — I had 
received a request to make the call to him. 

Mr. Sanders. No further questions. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Kalmbach, thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 1 :45 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
was recessed.] 



7623 

Kalmbach Exhibit No. 1 

March 18, 1971 



CONFIDENTIAL - EYES ONLY 



MEMORANDUM FOR: FRANK DEMARCO 

' TOM EVANS 

V HERB KALMBACH 

FROMi JOHN DEAN 



As per our discussions, I am forwarding a draft chArter . 
for the 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue operation and a document 
that might serve as a model to be used in connection with 
the Milk Producers Association Committee, et al. 

X would suggest you nnark up the document if you have 
cuggested changes and return It to me. I will then 
coordinate with you before a final draft is prepared. 



cci Johji N. Mitchell 



CONFIDENTIAL - EYES ONLY 



7624 



Kalmbach Exhibit No. 2 



The W»glil«^it lHerry.6».Bo—d the WASHINGTON POST r..,^. m. 2t. ,9n gj^ 

Secret Memo Bares MitchelhlTT Move 



, By Jack- Ander$on 

We now h»Te evidence that 
the settlement of the Nixon 
admjnutratton's biggest anti- 
trust case was privately ar- 
raoXed between Attorney Gen- 
eral John Mitchell and the top 
lob^it for the company in- 
volved. 

Wa have thli on the word 
of the lobbyist herself, crusty, 
eip^ile Dtta Beard of the In- 
ternational Telephone and 
Telesraph Co. She ackoowl- 
edged the seoet deal after we 
obtained a highly Incrlmlnat- 

; tog m emo, written b; her, from 

Mirri flies. 

'The memo, which was In- 
tended to be destroyed after it 
was read, not only indicates 
that the anti-trust case bad 
been tlzed but that the fix was 
• payoff for ITTs pledge of 
up to $100,000 for the upcom- 
ing Republican convention In 
San Diego. 

Confronted with the memo, 
Mrs. Beard acknowledged Its 
authenticity. The next night, 
badly shaken and acting 
against the wishes of ITT offi- 
cials who wanted her to leave 
town, she met with my-Hl^ 
elate Brit Hume at her home 
to try to explain the docu- 
ment 

By this time, she said, ITT 
security officers from com- 
pany headquarters in New 
York had put most of her of- 
fice files through a document 
shredder to prevent their 
being subpoenaed after disclo- 
sure of the memo. 
She said she met with 



Mitchell at the Governor's 31, 
mansion in Kentucky during a 
dinner reception given by Re- 
publlca%.Gov. I/Oule Nuhn last 
May after the Kentucky 
Derby. 

At the governors reception, 
she said, Mitchell took her 
and Nunn aside and to her as- 
tonishment and shock, 
launched into an hour-hmg 
diatribe against her. He critl 
died her for putting pressure 
through Congress and the 
on the Ju.sUce Department 
White House on the anti-trust 
cases. 

She said MltcheU confided 
to her he was sympathetic to 
ITT btit bad been prevented 
until then from helping the 
company because of the teal 
of the Justice Department's 
antitruat chief, Richard Mc- 
Laren. 

After Ids harangue, Mrs. 
Beard said, Mitchell agreed to 
discuss the ai\ti-trust niatters 
and asked bluntly, "What do 
you want?" meaning what 
companies did ITT most want 
to keep If the anti-trust cases 
were settled. 

■^e have to have Hartford 
Fire because of the economy," 
Mrs. Beard recalled saying. 

She said she also told Mitch 
ell ITT wanted to keep "part 
of the Grlnnell Corporation," 
a manufacturing concern. She 
said Mitchell at first replied, 
"You can't have part of Grin 
nell," but he subsequently re 
lented. 

And, she said, when the Jus- 
tlc< Department announced its 



more than two months nitely helping us, but cahnot 
later, it conformed to the , jjt it be known." 
agreement she had made with 
Mitchcli 

Mrs. Beard insisted the sub- 
ject of the GOP convention 
never came up with Mitchell 
and was never a factor in the 
anti-trust matter. But thiSj^-ajes. It is unfair to the in- 



ITT RepUea 

ITT issued the foUomng- 
ttatement yesterday. 

"There was no deal of any 
kind to settle our antitrust 



dearly cootradlets her memo- 
randum, which was written 
about six weeks after the Ken- 
tucky Derby dinner. 

It is addressed to W. R. 
(BiU) Merriam, head of ITTs 



dlviduals involved to even sug- 
gest such a possibilit>'. .Agree- 
ment was reached with the 
Justice Department only after 
hard negotiations between o'ur 
outside legal counsel and the. 



Washington office. It is then-Assistant Attorney Gen- 
marked "Personal and Confl-ierai Richard McLaren and hisj. 



dentlal" and its last line asks, 
"Please destroy this, huh?" 

The memo warns Merriam 
to keep quiet about the ITT 
cash pledge for the Republi- 
can convention. "John Mitch- 
ell has certainly kept It on tbe 
higher level only," the memo 
says, "we should be able to do 
the same . . . 

"I am convinced, becatise of 
several conversations with 
Louie (Gov. Nunn) re Mitchell 
that our noble commitment 
has gone a long way toward 

our negotiations on themerg-lwas made as a nonpartisan 
err eei»ing out as Hal (ITT joint effort of the SSn Diegi^ 
President Harold Geneen) community and was purely in 
wants them. Isupport of a loral situation 

"Certainly the President has | Sheraton has two hotels in 
told Mitchell to see" that San Diego and a third is un- 
thlngs are worked out (lig^g^g^aaMaltMatiaB. which would 
It is stlU only McLaren's mlck- ] t>e completed in time for the 
ey-mouse we are suffering . . . convention There was no tie- 



staff. 

"Neither Mrs. Beard nor 
anyone else except legal 
counsel was authorized to car- 
ry on such negotiations. Tne 
Jime 23, 1971, memorandum 
attributed to Mrs. Beard waf 
seen for the first time by tlvi 
ITT official to whom it was 
I addressed when it was 
brought in by a member of 
Mr. Anderson's staff last 
week. 

"The San Diego contribu- 
tion of the Sheraton Hotei^ n 



i^ 



"If (t ; convention commit- 
ment) gets too much publicity, 
you can believe our negotia- 
tions wit h Just ice will wind up business." 
settlement with ITT on July 'shot down. Mitchell is defl-l »ea-i««nnr»syn(ijc.it 



In of any kind between this 
local joint participation and 
any other asgects of ITT'4 



MONDAY, MARCH 25, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 :45 p.m. in room 
G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building. 

Present : Senator Inouye. 

Also present: Alan S. Weitz, assistant majority counsel; Donald G. 
Sanders, deputy minority counsel. 

Senator Inoute. Mr. Butterbrodt, raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. 1 do. 

Senator Inouye. State your name and address. 

Mr. Butterbrodt. John E. Butterbrodt, 500 North Park Avenue, 
Fond du Lac, Wis. 

[A brief recess was taken. ] 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Butterbrodt, you've identified your address for the 
record. Would your counsel please identify himself ? 

Mr. Green. Thomas C. Green, the firm of Ginsburg, Feldman & 
Bress, here in Washington. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Butterbrodt, what is your position with respect to 
AMPI? 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN E. BUTTERBRODT, ACCOMPANIED BY 
THOMAS C. GREEN, COUNSEL 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I serve as president of AMPI. 

Mr. Weitz. For the record, AMPI being Associated Milk Producers, 
Inc. 

How long have you held that position ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Since November 1, 1969. 

Mr. Weitz. Was that when AMPI was officially formed? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Technically, we started operating, or AMPI 
started operating its fiscal year on October 1, and we held a board 
meeting on October 31 at which time the co-op I was associated with 
merged into AMPI, and because some of the co-ops' fiscal year started 
on October 1, we went back and picked up the month of October as an 
operating month, but it was after the fact, and we really started phys- 
ically November 1. 

Mr. Weitz. Was Harold Nelson one of the principal persons respon- 
sible for the organization of AMPI ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes. 

(7625) 



30-337 O - 74 



7626 

Mr. Weitz. Was Dave Parr another? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. "WTiat is your role or your responsibilities in connection 
with the presidency of AMPI, the presidency of the board ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Well, of course, No. 1, I'm a dairy farmer and live 
on the dairy farm and operate a dairy farm and I still manage that 
dairy operation. And then serving as president of AMPI, I am re- 
sponsible of course for board activities, and board agendas. 

And second, I would say it's reporting to producers. I make a lot of 
producer meetings and report to producers as to what's going on in 
AMPI. 

Mr. Weitz. Producer members of AMPI ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. As a board member and as president, do you sit on any 
type of executive committee ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Well, we've got an executive board of, say, the 10 
officers. We seldom meet. When we do meet, it's usually in conjunc- 
tion with a corporate board meeting to take up any matters that, you 
know, we might want to discuss at the time of the board meeting. But 
basically, the executive board has little authority. 

Mr. Weitz. Who, in practicality, actually under the organization 
of AMPI, has the day-to-day management responsibilities? 

INIr. BuTTERBRODT. The general manager has full control of the busi- 
ness operation and he and he alone has the authority to hire and fire, 
et cet^^ra. 

Mr. Weitz. Whiat about financial reports? Are those made to the 
board periodically ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. YcS. 

Mr. Weitz. And as a member of the board, you've had occasion to 
review those financial reports when they've been made ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. YcS. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, the Trust for Agricultural Political Education 
known as TAPE, was formed in 1969, was it not? 

Mr. Green. If you know. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I'm not sure of the date. It was formed before 
AMPI was. 

Mr. Weitz. It was in existence when AMPI was formed ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you become a member of TAPE ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. By contributions you mean ? 

Mr. Weitz. Yes. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Not in 1969. 

Mr. Weitz. Before its closing, however, in 1972 or 1973 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. YcS. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you ever hold any official position, such as on a com- 
mittee or an executive committee of some sort for TAPE ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Are you a member of the committee for TAPE ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. YcS. 

Mr. Weitz. That is the successor, so to speak, or similar organization 
to TAPE? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Right. 



7627 

Mr. Weitz. Do you hold or have you ever held a position of respon- 
sibility in connection with the Committee for TAPE ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes — isn't that what you just asked? 

Mr. Weitz. I said were you a member 

Mr. Green. A contributing member. 

Mr. Weitz. A contributing member ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. You Avere a contributing member. Are you also a mem- 
ber of the governing committee for TAPE ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Isn't the Committee for TAPE a separate organization 
from TAPE and there is an executive committee of the Committee for 
TAPE, or am I incorrect ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I think you're incorrect. The Committee for 
TAPE came about in 1972 with a change in the law, the Federal law, 
and at that time the trust for TAPE was j)hased out or went out of 
existence and the Committee for TAPE was structured according to 
the Federal law, and that is the only organization in existence today, 
as far as political. 

Mr. Weitz. So you say Committee for TAPE is an organization 
which has members that contribute to a fund from which political 
contributions are made, is that right ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Right. 

Mr. Weitz. And do you have an official position in connection with 
the Committee for TAPE? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. What is that position ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I'm one of the committee members of the TAPE 
committee. 

Mr. Weitz. Off the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Weitz. I think for convenience we'll refer to the organization 
Committee for TAPE as CTAPE. And I take it from what you said 
that you are a member of the four-man administering body for 
CTAPE ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Right. 

Mr. Weitz. "Who are the other three individuals? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Mel Besemer, Preach Griffith, and Dr. Mehren. 

Mr. Weitz. And do the four of you taken together, this administer- 
ing body, have full responsibility for the collection and disposition of 
funds of CTAPE? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, I'd like to direct your attention to 1969. Do you 
have any knowledge of the delivery of $100,000 to Herb Kalmbach by 
Milton Semer in that year ? 

]Mr. Butterbrodt. I do from the report, the Ed Wright report, and 
from a letter that Mr. Heininger wrote to the CRP committee. 

Mr. Weitz. Have you seen a copy of that letter ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Before we complete the day's session, I don't have a 
copy with me, I'd like to include that in the record and I'll show it to 
you for identification. 



7628 

Do you have any knowledge of the source of the money that was 
delivered to — other than those that you just mentioned — the source of 
money that was delivered to Mr. Kalmbach, other than the Wright 
report ? 

Mr. BUTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Now Stuart Russell was an attorney that was employed 
by AMPI ; is that right? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT, Correct. 

Mr. Weitz. When I say "was employed," he no longer performs any 
services for AMPI ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. That's right. 

Mr. Weitz. Before 1972, did you have any knowledge of any pay- 
ments made to Mr. Russell or any billings by Mr. Russell that were not 
for services performed — for legal services performed by Mr. Russell 
for AMPI? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. And what knowledge did you have? 

Mr. Butterbrodi'. I was informed that additional payments were 
being made to Mr. Russell to pay other attorneys and other personnel 
that they did not want to — whose names they did not want to appear on 
our statement or records. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know approximately when you came into this 
knowledge ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. It would have perhaps been lat« 1971. 

Mr. Weitz. Who told you ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Harold Nelson and Bob Isham reported it to the 
board after questions were asked if that was the reason for his 
high billings. 

Mr. Weitz. Was this the explanation given by both of them or only 
by Mr. Nelson? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I think both of them in about — you know, that 
many words. They both explained it that way. 

Mr. Weitz. Was the whole board present — was it a board meeting ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I'm not sure whether it was at a board meeting or 
a finance committee where it was discussed, but I believe the whole 
board was in session at the time that the answer was given. 

Mr. Weitz. Hasn't Bob Isham told you something along those lines, 
but perhaps a slightly different version several months before? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No ; in fact I met with Bob Isham on at least two 
occasions separate and apart from, say, a board session where I asked 
Bob Isham in detail whether there was anything going on that was 
unethical or illegal or anything that the board should be knowledge- 
able of and on both occasions Bob Isham said, "No," that everything 
was above board. Bob Isham was a very honorable individual and 
highly respected in my book until he left this last summer, and I be- 
lieved Bob Isham when he told me there was nothing wrong going on 
in the financial field. 

Mr. Weitz. What led you to ask him the question in the first place ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Oh, I think, one, out of responsibility. I perhaps 
at different times asked different employees what they know about, 
be it insurance or finances, and Bob Isham didn't show up at one of 
our board meetings and I was concerned that maybe something was 
bothering him, so I got in touch with him and asked him if something 
was bothering him that he didn't show up at a board meeting. 



7629 

Mr. Weitz. Now, at this board meeting in late 1971, when Mr. Isham 
and Mr. Nelson gave the explanation that you've mentioned, did they 
explain or did you ask what attorneys and other costs were covered 
by these payments to Mr. Russell and similar attorneys ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. If the question was asked, the general type answer 
we would get was that it would be better if we didn't know, for the 
good of Associated Milk Producers, Inc., if it wasn't known, so the 
question was never answered. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have any understanding either at that meeting 
or otherwise as to what was intended by that answer or what, in fact, 
was the case? 

Mr. BUTTEKBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, in 1972, did you have occasion to meet with Dr. 
Mehren and Mr. Russell to discuss these matters further ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. What was the occasion of that meeting ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Shortly 

Mr. Green. Can we identify — you use the whole year there. 

Mr. Weitz. My next question was going to be when. 

Mr. Green. All right. 

Mr. Weitz. Let me ask you first, do you recall when such a meeting 
or meetings took place ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. It would have been shortly after we changed 
management, within 2 or 3 weeks after we changed management. 

Mr. Weitz. The record shows that that change took place on Janu- 
ary 12, 1972. Would it then have been by the end of January 1972? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. The end of January or the first of February. 

Mr. Weitz. What was the occasion for the meeting ? 

Mr, Butterbrodt. We went through a process of calling in, basically, 
virtually all the employees that were connected with the home office 
because we were trymg to trim costs. We were cutting out personnel 
and were trying to cut back personnel, that we did not need, and we had 
Stu Russell in to discuss with him, No. 1, the need for retaining him 
and, No. 2, reducing his costs and so forth— was the reason for the 
meeting. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you also take that opportunity to ask him what 
attorneys or other persons were receiving payments from him to which 
Mr. Nelson had alluded ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. We asked him — of course, the question put was 
more along the lines of why the high legal fees, and he indicated to 
us then that he was passing fees or paying out money to other 
attorneys and personnel and he indicated that this was how Harold 
Nelson had instructed him to operate. And that's why he did it. 

Again, at that point, Ave said there'd be no more of that, that if 
somebody was going to work for us the name would appear on the 
statement and we would not fund anybody through that method. 

Mr. Weitz. And you did not know at that time that some portion 
of that money or other moneys had gone for political contributions? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No; he indicated to us even at that point he — he 
did not indicate that it was for political activity. 

Mr. Weitz. And you knew nothing to the contrary, is that correct? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. That's right. "Wlien we asked him — and we did 
ask him about where the funds were going and why — -his answer was 
basically that before — he would not tell us, and Dr. Mehren asked 



7630 

him the question about what he would do if he got in a courtroom 
where he had to raise his hand and explain where it went. And Stu's 
words were something to the effect that he would take the fifth amend- 
ment there and he would not tell us where it went. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he explain his reluctance or his refusal to tell you ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No ; he indicated he had his books coded, that he 
felt he was doing nothing illegal, and that if he had, say, to prove to 
somebody where the dollars went, that it did not — you knoAv, he did 
not get it or benefit from it. But he wouldn't tell us. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know how much money was involved in these 
transactions ? 

Mr. BuTi'ERBRODT. Only from the Ed Wright report. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Mr. Eussell indicate how much money was 
involved ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Mr. Russell also indicate that there was still some 
money due him as a result of previous transactions to cover his excess 
taxes ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes ; he indicated that he had a commitment from 
Harold Nelson that any costs or liabilities to him in regard to paying 
other employees — and I've since learned, too, that one of the employees 
was a former NFO employee that was on his payroll, and I guess this 
is what I gathered even when I first heard about it, that I gathered 
that that's what it was used for. 

Mr. Weitz. Was that employee Wynn Hollowell ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No ; I don't believe so. I can't say his name. He 
came from Wisconsin. 

Mr. Weitz. That's all right. 

Didn't you know or have a serious suspicion, that much of the 
money that went to Russell, went for political purposes when Mr. Nel- 
son was replaced in January of 1972 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. And if I could, you know, elaborate on that, 
we did have the political fund where dairy farmers were voluntarily 
putting money into the political fund and I never suspected, and 
I still don't understand why, if they wanted dollars for pplitical 
activities they didn't use that fund, because the funds were there to be 
used and there were dollars there to be used for political activity. I 
think I felt at the time that there was no reason to use any other funds. 

Mr. Weitz. You indicated that Mr. Russell did ask for additional — 
did indicate that more money was due him to cover his back taxes. 
Did he indicate how much ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No ; not as I recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Was he told to go and find out how much or did he 
suggest he would do so ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't think we talked about it at that time. 
This was, like I indicate, late January or early February, and he just 
indicated that there was a commitment made and we didn't, I don't 
believe, get into it any further at that meeting. 

Mr. Weitz. Who made tlie commitment, or who did he indicate made 
the commitment to him ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Harold Nelson. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there anything else about that meeting that you 
can recall? 



7631 

Mr. BUTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you meet with him again ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. With Stu Russell ? 

Mr. Weitz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I don't believe so. 

Mr. Weitz. In connection with this matter. 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you discuss the matter any further outside of Mr. 
Russell's presence with Dr. Mehren ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. At that time ? 

Mr. Weitz. At that t ime or any time thereafter. 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Well, thereafter we certainly talked about it. 

Mr. Weitz. Wliat about in the next— let's limit it — ^through April of 
1972, February, March, and April of 1972 ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. At the time tiiat Stu Russell came in and actually 
received a settlement, Dr. Meliren reported that he, Stu Russell, had 
been in and they worked out a settlement, and that Stu was paid. 

Mr. Weitz. You were not present at that settlement? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he tell you how much was paid to Mr. Russell ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I believe he did. yes. I don't recall, but I'm sire 
he did ; because we communicated on a daily basis. 

Mr. Weitz. How much was that ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I know now it was $66,000. I am not sure at t-.iat 
time whether he said $60,000 or $66,000, but he indicated a settlement 
was made, 

Mr. Weitz. Wasn't there, in addition, a note that was forgiven Mr. 
Russell? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. From the Ed Wright report, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. You didn't know about it at the time? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you know that any note had been made out by Mr. 
Russell? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did vou know of the $50,000 payment made to Mr. 
Russell in April 1971 ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. When did you come to know about that ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. When the issue came up at the board meeting. 
It was in the fall of 1971 when the $50,000 note appeared on our finan- 
cial records, that there was a note, and a question was asked why j,r^ 
we borrowing money to an attorney, and the answer given was that 
Stu Russell 

]Mr, Weitz. From an attorney? I believe it was a note from otu 
Russell. 

INIr. Butterbrodt. No. It was the the other way around. 

Mr. Weitz. Are you talking about a payment ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Well, it was Stu Russell's note. He borrowed 
$50,000 from AMPI. 

Mr. Weitz. I see. 

Mr. Butterbrodt. And it showed up actually that he owed us 
$50,000; and the question was why Ave re we borrowing from an at- 
torney $50,000, and the answer was that Stu Russell had financial 



7632 

problems at the time of tax, and so he borrowed $50,000 and gave a 
note for it to pay his taxes, and that he would pay it back. 

Mr. Weitz. Nobody indicated that had anything to do — or his taxes 
that he could not cover had anything to do with his transactions for 
AMPI? 

Mr. BUTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. "^^Hien Dr. Mehren informed you of the settlement with 
Mr. Eussell in April 1972, did he mention or did you mention any- 
thing about the note ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No ; I don't believe so. 

Mr. Weftz. Whatever happened to the note, do you know ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Well, from the Ed Wright report I know it was 
washed out. 

Mr. Weitz. Was that part of the settlement as you understand it? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Green. That settlement — his understanding is based on the 
Wright report. That's what he's testified to earlier. 

Mr. Weitz. All right. Now, you say when Mr. Russell met with you 
and Dr. Mehren in late January or early February, he refused, or at 
least declined, to elaborate on the purposes for which the moneys he 
delivered to certain unknown — unnamed employees or attorneys was 
used. 

Was any further light shed on that matter at the time of the 
settlement, or at least did Dr. Mehren inform you of any further 
information he received at that time ? 

Mr. Butierbrodt. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Can you explain why the payment of approximately 
$66,000 was made without a further explanation of the transactions for 
which the liability arose ? 

Mr. Green. Do you mean explanation to him ? 

Mr. Weitz. Either explanation to him or to him throusfh Dr. Mehren. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Well, the answer being that Dr. Mehren informed 
me that the figures, you know, were put together by Bob Isham as 
what we owed ; and that he had run it by Heininjrer — using his lan- 
guage, he ran it by Heininger and Heininger OK'd it. So to me, if 
Heininger OK'd it and Bob Isham OK'd it and Dr. Mehren was satis- 
fied with it, I didn't question it. 

In the first place, that is not part of my obligations to start with. 

Mr. Sanders. I believe you've answered to Alan's questions that 
when you and Nelson — you and Mehren talked with Russell in Febru- 
ary of 1972, he declined to furnish to you the names of persons to whom 
pavments were being made by him. 

Was there any discussion between you and Mehren as to withholding 
fitrther payment from Russell until he made a disclosure of the 
identities? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't think we discussed, reallv, the withhold- 
ing of the payments. We discussed at great length about cutting him 
ofP altoflfether as a firm that was employed by us. 

Mr. Sanders. Are you saving that to the best of your recollection it 
did not occur to you, nor did it appear to have occurred to Mehren to 
"inRi«5t upon that disclosure as the price for meeting his additional 
billing? 



7633 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No ; I would say that after talking with Mr. 
Grossman, the lawj'^er in Chicago, that our advice was, that we were 
not the FBI. It was not our obligation to investigate to find out 
whether there was wrongdoing or wasn't. We honored commitments, 
not only Stu's, but other commitments that were made at that time. 
And we cut it off, so to speak ; anything like that we cut off at that 
time. And it was not our obligation to investigate the past and see 
what was done wrong. 

Mr. Sanders. Well, without respect to your obligation to investigate 
criminal wrongdoing, didn't you feel you had an obligation to your 
40,000 members to insure that any substantial funds paid to Russell 
were for legitimate purposes ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Well, no different than we did for Joe Johnson 
or anybody else in that position. 

Mr. Sanders. But here you had a situation where he wouldn't even 
tell you who the money was paid to. How could you feel that your 
40,000 members were being protected if you don't even know the 
identity of the recipient of the funds ? 

Mr. BurrEKBRODT. Well, the dollars went to Stu Russell and 

Mr. Green. I think the record should also indicate, if you want to 
question the witness about it, that Mr. Russell was their attorney with 
respect to certain legal matters that were pending at the time, and 
was, in fact, terminated within a relatively short period of time. 

Mr. Sanders. Yes, certainly the record should show that. Neverthe- 
less, the facts are that a substantial svun of money was paid to him at 
the time of, or soon after his termination. I think the record would 
sliow that. 

Mr. Weitz. In that connection, when was Mi'. Russell — when did his 
employment by AMPI terminate ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I couldn't tell you exactly. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it within several months after that payment? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. It seems to me that it would have been the early 
part of 1973. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it in October of 1973 ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Let's say 1973. I'm not sure what month. 

Mr. Weitz. I'd like to turn to 1970". Do you have any knowledge of 
any meetings or contacts between representatives of AJMPI in 1970 
with Charles Colson ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. I'll address the same question with respect to Herb 
Kalmbach. 

Mr. Bittterbrodt. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you have any knowledge of any representations or 
pledges or commitments of campaign contributions by representatives 
of AMPI made to Republican fundraisers in 1970 ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. iN o, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you have any knowledge of efforts by AMPi to 
secure the attendance of the President at the first annual convention of 
AMPI in 1970? 

Mr, Butterbrodt. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. What efforts were made in that direction? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Well, how much effort of what was, you know, 
made to get him there, I am not aware of. But I know leading up to 



7634 

that annual meeting in 1970, that Harold Nelson and Dave Parr con- 
tinually told the board that they thought the President was going to 
speak at our annual meeting in 1970 ; and for that reason, that was one 
of the reasons that we needed something like 10,000 people in our 
annual meeting in Chicago. And by the same token, there were a lot 
of people that, you know, indicated he would not come to the annual 
meeting. 

At the time of the annual meeting, when I got to Chicago and got 
out to the Chicago Stadium, and saw the stadium and how they had it 
set for the annual meeting, I realized that President Nixon would not 
speak at that meeting. There wasn't enough security, that kind of 
thing, the way they had it set up for the meeting; that he was not 
going to come. And yet, Harold and Dave insisted up to the day before 
the meeting that he was going to speak, and that's why the very day of 
the annual meeting, they had to substitute Senator Muskie and get 
Senator Muskie on a last minute sort of program, to get in and speak 
to the annual meeting that night. 

Mr. Weitz. I take it at that meeting — we understand that President 
Nixon called the convention and spoke with Mr. Nelson. Do you have 
any knowledge of that ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I don't know whether Nelson called — you know, 
who called who. Harold Nelson indicated he talked to President Nixon 
and that President Nixon indicated there was some program — I'm not 
sure whether it was imports or what it was — that they were — some 
proclamation 

Mr. Weitz. The school lunch ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Scliool luuch, that's what it was. Indicated they 
were going to fund the school lunch program again. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Secretary Hardin speak at the convention? 

Mr. BuiTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he make the announcement with respect to the 
school lunch program ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I belicve so. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you have any knowledge of any meetings between 
Mr. Nelson and Mr. Parr or Mr. Parr with the President in 1970 other 
than this telephone conversation ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes; as I recall, and as they reported to me, within 
perhaps — and I don't know the time, but I'd say within 2 weeks of the 
1970 annual meeting, Harold and Dave met with President Nixon at 
the TYhite House, is the story that I have. 

Mr. Weitz. Did they tell you ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I belicve both Harold and Dave told me, but I 
may not have the story, you know, just exact. But they met with Presi- 
dent Nixon. He indicated, one, he was sorry he did not come out to our 
annual meeting. When people told him there would be 10,000 people 
there, he didn't believe there would be that large a crowd. He indicated 
he was sorry he had been misinformed or misread the meeting, that he 
wished he had come to the meeting. 

And No. 2, he told them that he'd like to meet with some of the dairy 
farmer leaders of AMPI. and could they arrange a meeting with some 
of us to meet with the President. 



7635 

And three, he indicated that he would be the speaker for our annual 
meeting in 1971. And as the story goes, Dave told him if he would be 
the speaker, wc would have 40,000 at the annual meeting. 

Following that, of course, at least two or maybe three different oc- 
casions — that would have been September of 1970 until March of 
1971 — Harold or Dave notified me and said "We've got a tentative 
date to meet the President at the White House." We were going to talk 
to him in November of 1970 and again in December and perhaps Jan- 
uary 1971. There were indications to me that they were setting up a 
meeting and holding certain dates to go to the ^Vliite House because the 
President wanted to talk to us. And as we got closer to those meeting 
dates, they were then canceled, something came up ; <and again, I don't 
know if it was management, or say from, the President's side that they 
were canceled. But I was told that they were canceled. And con- 
sequently, the meeting on March 23d was set when we went to the 
White House. And as far as I'm concerned, it was continuation of that 
conversation that we had in the fall of 1970. 

Mr. Weitz. How much in advance of the March 23d meeting did 
vou receive firm information as to time and place — not place — ^time and 
date? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I really don't know. I would say 2 weeks perhaps. 
I really don't know though. It could be 3 ; it could be 1 ; but I'm just 
guessing it would have been a couple of weeks, maybe a little longer. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, 1971, did you take part in the effort to secure a 
price support increase ? 

Mr, BuTTERBRODT. YcS. 

Mr. Weitz. "What was your role ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I Came to Washington perhaps on one, maybe two, 
occasions just with that, you know, respect in mind, where we met 
and then talked to Congressmen and Senators, the Congressmen and 
Senators perhaps from Wisconsin that I knew, and encouraged them 
or asked them to support the bill to increase price support.. Perhaps I 
spent time on the phone talking to co-ops in other parts of the country. 
And I'm thinking of, oh, Mountain Empire out in Denver — ^I knew the 
people, and I talked to their Congressman. But it was maybe 1 to 3 
days at the most that I worked on it. 

Mr. Weitz. January through March of 1971? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Ycs. I dou't know if they were working at it dur- 
ing January, because we really, as I recall, didn't put any, you know, 
real effort — other than the original call, we didn't put really any real 
effort into it until after Secretary Hardin announced lower supports, 
when we came out and tried to get the bill introduced. That's as I re- 
member it. 

Mr. Weitz. I take it you had no contacts directly with anyone in the 
administration and the Wiite House other than the meeting with the 
President on the 23d ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Just SO the record is clear, you know, I can get 
trapped on that one, because as I recall from this morning, in perhaps 
early March or the end of February, President Nixon had — and per- 
haps it was February — President Nixon had a program on world de- 
velopment that really had nothing to do with dairying or the milk 
industry. But he invited farm leaders to the White House to discuss his 



7636 

rural development program. That isn't really the right technical name 
of what the program was, but that was the intent — to help develop the 
rural areas, communities, and cities and so forth. 

And I got a telegram or a notice of the meeting at the White House ; 
and I remember this because I called Harold Nelson and I indicated to 
Harold that I had gotten a notice to go to the White House. I didn't 
think it really related to dairying, and should I go. And his instruc- 
tions to me — and right or wrong, I still operate with those instruc- 
tions or follow that kind of philosophy — that when the Wliite House 
calls and invites you to the White House, you go, and you don't call 
up and give excuses and so forth. 

And so I did come to Washington, and I was at the White House with 
that conference. I did meet that time in the Oval Office. It had nothing 
to do with dairying, but I was there. 

Mr. Weitz. Let me rephrase the question then with respect to the 
dairy price support program. Did you have any contacts during 
January, February, or March of 1971 with members of the adminis- 
tration other than the meeting with the President on the 23d ? 

Mr. Btjtterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you have any knowledge of any contacts during that 
same neri'^d, W rpr»resentatives of AMPI and the other dairy coopera- 
tives, with either Mr. Colson or Secretary Connally ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. Maybe I should ask, is Colson an attorney ? 

Mr. Weitz. I think at that time he was counsel, a special counsel to 
the President. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. The answer would be no. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know of any contacts with anybody in the admin- 
istration other than the March 23 meeting? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, other than I'm sure there were contacts in 
setting up that March 23 meeting. 

Mr. Weitz. With respect to substantive discussions concerning the 
dairy price support program ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, Other than they certainly probably contacted 
thp ftef^ctarv of A<Tfrir>nl^"re. 

Mr. Weitz. Secretary Hardin ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. YcS. 

Mr. Weitz. How about Under Secretary Campbell ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I wouldu't be aware of that. 

Mr. Weitz. What about with respect to political contributions or 
possible political support for the Presidential campaijni. President 
Nixon's reelection campaign, were there any discussions that you were 
aware of — not with the administration necessarily, but among the 
cooperatives or representatives of the dairy farmers in Washington 
at that time, January, February, or March of 1971 ? Was there any 
discussion of contributions that might be made or would be made to 
the reelection campaign ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any internal discussion in AMPI or TAPE 
as to who you would support for the reelection campaign ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. How soon before the March 23 meeting did you arrive 
in Washington ? 



7637 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I bclieve I came in the night before; and there 
again I could be wrong, but I believe I came in the night before. 

Mr. Weitz. The 22 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes, 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware of the $10,000 contribution or four 
contributions totaling $10,000 to four Republican committees made 
by TAPE on March 22, 1971 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. I WIS aware, of course, that they were 
going to — that they had bought tickets for the Republican national 
fund-raising dinner, which was rather a yearly thing and always had 
been something that we bought tickets for. And I knew they had 
bought, say, $10,000 worth of tickets for that, or were goin^ to. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know how much the other cooperatives' trusts 
were going to contribute, if anything? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, I dou't know. 

Mr. Weitz. For either the dinner or the reelection campaign ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you see or meet with Marion Harrison while you 
were in Washington ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I believe we met in his office the morning before 
we went over to the White House. 

Mr. Weitz. Any other occasion that you can recall ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you meet or talk with Murray Chotiner during that 
same period ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I bclieve so, if he was a part of that law firm. We 
met across the street, and the names are not familiar with me. 

Mr. Weitz. So you don't actually recall ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I think he Avas there. The name, you know, rings 
a bell, but 

Mr. Weitz. How about Pat Hillings, do you know him 2 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know if he attended the meeting with the Presi- 
dent on the 23d ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I doii't think so, but I don't know. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Mr. Colson attend the meeting ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I doii't kuow. 

Mr. Weitz. With the President? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't kuow. 

Mr. Weitz. You don't know Mr. Colson ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't kiiow Mr. Colson. 

Mr. Wettz. How about Jake Jacobsen— do you know him ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Was he present, or did you hear any discussion relating 
to him while you were in Washington ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. I do not think he was here. Really — let's see, 
that would have been 1971 ? 

Mr. Weitz. March of 1971. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I wouldii't havc known Jake at that time, but 
knowing Jake, you know, from when I did meet him, I'm sure if he 
was there — he's an individual of rather outstanding appearance and I 
would have remembered him. So I don't think I had even met Jake 
Jacobsen or knew him at that time. 



7638 

Mr. Weitz. Without regard to whether or not you met him at that 
time, do you recall any discussion of any contacts between representa- 
tives of any dairy co-ops and Secretary Connally, John Connally? 

Mr. BUTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. What did you do after the meeting with the President? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. As I recall, I left — as most of us did when we 
left the White House, we got out to the street and kind of dispersed 
in various directions. I grabbed a cab and went back and picked up 
my suitcase and went back to Wisconsin. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any reason why you did not come in earlier 
than the night before the meeting with the President, or any reason 
that you left immediately after the meeting — if the reason for your 
being in Washington for a few days in that period, March of 1971, 
was to push some milk price-support legislation, why didn't you take 
that opportunity to visit some Congressmen ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Well, I had called on, say, my Congressman, and 
usually, as the case this year, the Wisconsin Congressman, my Con- 
gressman and Senators from Wisconsin were on record and would be 
on record supporting the dairy industry because they come from a 
dairy State. I'm not a part of, you know, management in the sense that 
it would be my job, so to speak, to line up others. And as the president 
or board member, that wouldn't be my responsibility in the first place; 
and I'd probably not be very effective at it if it were. 

So my position — the reason I was at the Wliite House was because 
of my title and not my capabilities in the political field. 

Mr. Weitz. When did you first learn that the price-support de- 
cision was going to be, or would probably be, increased ? Did you learn 
of that before it was publicly announced ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No, unless it was just an hour or two. It was 
about, I'd say, a week to 10 days later. I was at a meeting in Chicago 
when someone informed me that, you know, support prices were going 
to be increased ; and it was announced to the delegates — I believe we 
had kind of an annual meeting of that area — and it was announced to 
the delegates there. But it was made public that day. 

Mr. Weitz. If the record indicates that the decision was made pub- 
lic on March 25, 2 days after the meeting with the President, would 
that be the day you're talking about ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. What was the 23d then ? A Tuesday ? 

Mr. Weitz. Tuesday. 

Mr. Butterbrodt. It would have been Thursday. 

Mr. Weitz. Thursday, the 25th ? 

[Mr. Butterbrodt nods in the affirmative.] 

Mr. Weitz. Was that the day of the meeting of the Central America 
Cooperative Federation ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. I believe that was — 1971 ? 

Mr. Weitz. 1971. 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I believe we had an annual meeting of that partic- 
ular region in March out at — I don't know — Arlington Park, Pheasant 
Run, one of those type places. We had a delegate body at the meeting, 
so it would have been that Thursday at that particular meeting. I be- 
lieve I was serving at that time as president of that particular region 
and was conducting the meeting there, and it was reported at that 
meeting. 



7639 

Mr. Weitz. Do you want to ask questions about 1971 before I go on 
to 1972? 

Mr. Sanders. This is off the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Weitz. Back on the record. 

Actually, let me ask one more question. Did you ever learn of any 
information from either Mr. Nelson, Mr. Parr, or anyone else con- 
nected with AMPI, as to the reason for the increase announced on 
March 25 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Did I learn of the reason ? 

Mr. Weitz. Did they shed any light on the decision ? 

Mr. Green". Why the President changed his 

Mr. Weitz. Increased the supports. 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Not really. I'd have to say not from them. But 
when I left the meeting with the President, I was pretty well con- 
vinced he was going to change his mind, and that the price supports 
would be increased. 

Mr. Weitz. So it didn't come to you as much of a surprise when you 
heard fehe announcement ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did they ever indicate to you — Mr. Nelson, Mr. Parr, 
or any others connected with AMPI — ^that they had made any com 
mitments or representations with respect to contributions during that 
period of March 1971 ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Whether or not connected to the milk price-support 
decision ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Apart from March 1971, did you learn of any commit- 
ments or representations made in 1971, as to contributions to be made 
by TAPE for the President's reelection ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Weitz. When Dr. Mehren became general manager in January 
1972, did he ask you whether any commitments were outstanding with 
respect to political contributions to the President? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I don't believe he asked me, no. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you know whether any commitments were then 
outstanding ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. To my knowledge there were no commitments 
outstanding. 

Mr. Weitz. Either outstanding or had been made and satisfied ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. That's right. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know why close to $250,000 had been con- 
tributed by the three dairy trusts in 1971 to the President's reelection 
campaign ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Other than that the President did reverse him- 
self or did increase the price support, he did fund the school milk 
program the year before ; we had some favorable decisions from the 
administration. That's what the fund is for, to help those people that 
are friendly to the industry. And I saw nothing wrong with contribu- 
tions going to President Nixon's committee. 

Mr. Weitz. Even before his announced — the Democratic nominee 
had been named ? 



7640 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. To me, you know, that's what the fund was 
for. And again, it was a political fund to be used for political 
activities. 

Mr. Weitz. What political activities were underway in 1971, do 
you know, for the President ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I couldu't tell you, other than to get him elected 
again, I suppose. I did not, you know, work with the committee or 
have any input into where the funds went or how, so I just assumed 
that those people with that responsibility knew where the proper funds 
should go and how they should be spent. 

Mr. Weitz. Turning your attention to primarily 1972, when were 
you first apprised of an investigation by the Justice Department of 
AMPI? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I belicve it was the end of January when we got 
word — you're talking about the antitrust suit being filed 2 

Mr. Weitz. But it was preceded by an investigation, and I am won- 
dering whether you had any knowledge of the investigation that was 
conducted by the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department ? 

Mr. Btjtterbrodt. No, I wasn't aware of any investigation. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you told by anyone else that such an investigation 
had taken place or was underway ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I don't believe so. 

Mr. Weitz. When was your first knowledge of either the impending 
suit or the suit itself ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I believc it was the end of January when there was 
an indication that Justice was — and I don't understand, you know, the 
terms and et cetera. But that Justice was charging us, and it seems to 
me — I don't know whether the consent decree comes first, or just what. 
But that they were, in fact — had charged us and gave us a consent 
decree. We had something like 24 hours, or whatever, to sign it, "or 
else." And Dr. Mehren indicated, after reading it, that he couldn't 
sign it ; it would virtually put us out of business. And so, I guess we 
got the "or else." 

Mr. Weitz. That is, the suit was filed ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have any knowledge of a request by the Justice 
Department to the Attorney General for approval for the impaneling 
of a grand jury to investigate criminal violations by AMPI ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I do now ; I did not know then. 

Mr. Weitz. Wliat is the source of your knowledge ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Depositions. 

Mr. Weitz, In the antitrust suit ? 

Mr. Green. We call it a civil suit. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. There are so many depositions out, I don't know. 

Mr. Weitz. In some litigation. Did you first learn about the possible 
filing of the antitrust suit from Dr. Mehren ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. At that time, or afterwards, was there any discussion of 
political contributions to the President's reelection effort ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. None that you were privy to ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 



7641 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have any knowledge of any meetings in early 
February 1972, between Dr. Mehren and Herb Kalmbach ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you tell us how you came to that knowledge ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I believe Dr. Mehren and I were together — well, 
again, I think it was that same meeting where we first heard about 
the suit, which would have been about the 27th or 28th — maybe I 
shouldn't be that specific on dates, because I'm not, you know, that 
good with dates. It would have been the end of January when we were 
together in Chicago. And Dr. Mehren indicated that he had a meeting 
with Kalmbach, or that he had gotten word that Kalmbach wanted 
to talk to him. And he asked me if I thought it would be advisable that 
I go along with him to meet with Kalmbach. And as I recall, my answer 
would have been or was something to the effect, "There's no point in 
me going up there to meet with Kalmbach. You know what he wants ; 
he's going to want some dollars, and we're not going to contribute 
any dollars." 

Because, basically, we were on record at that time of not spending 
any money out of the TAPE Committee — it was TAPE at that time. 
Because one of the second or third question that was asked by the board 
of Dr. Mehren, at the time we were hiring Dr. Mehren, was what his 
position would be in regard to TAPE and expenditures of TAPE. And 
he committed to the board that we would restructure TAPE and that 
(1) we Avouldn't make any contributions for something like 30 days 
or until we had it restructured. And then we'd have a committee set 
up that would actually approve the payments before they were made, 
under the new management. 

And therefore, say, at the end of January, we were under a commit- 
ment of Dr. Mehren that we wouldn't spend any money out of TAPE. 
And I perhaps indicated to the doctor that it didn't pay me to go along 
and see Kalmbach. But knowing who Kalmbach was, he should go and 
talk to him and meet with him, and not turn him down, as far as 
having a session. 

Mr. Weitz. In other words, listen to him. But certainly your un- 
derstanding was that he wasn't going to commit any funds to him at 
that point ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. That's right. 

Mr. Weitz. He wasn't going to turn him down, though, at the meet- 
ing, I take it ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. That's right. 

Mr. Weitz. Not just for the meeting, but at the meeting. He was 
not necessarily going to refuse to give 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. He wouldn't refuse, but he wouldn't offer or agree 
to, either. 

Mr. Weitz. Wlien had you first heard about Herb Kalmbach, first 
learned who he was ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Being a member of the Republican Party, and 
knowing, you know. President Nixon and having been to the White 
House, I am sure I knew who Kalmbach was in 1971, sometime in 1971. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it in relation to any of the dairy trust contributions 
that you knew who he was ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No ; strictly through political party lines. 



7642 

Mr. Weitz. The fact that the antitrust suit was pendin.^ or was about 
to be filed, did that have any bearing; on your instructions or recom- 
mendations or discussion with Dr. Mehren about how he should han- 
dle the meeting with Kalmbach ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No ; Dr. Mehren made his, you know, statement 
to the board on January 12, that we would restructure TAPE, and 
there'd be no expenditures out of it for a period of time until it was 
restructured. And so the antitrust suit which was filed, say, 2 weeks 
later had no bearing on his meeting with Kalmbach. 

Mr. Weitz. If you had no concern, or vou said it wasn't your re- 
sponsibility for TAPE in 1971, Avhen close to $200,000 was spent by 
TAPE for the President's reelection effort, why did you think it was 
advisable to change that structure in January of 1972, with respect, 
now, just, to TAPE? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Two reasons, really. One, committee members, 
producer members who served on the former committee that was 
basically, let's say, a reporting committee of the old trust, or the 
TAPE — in particular. Glen Schaffer and Gene Tennyson, from Wis- 
consin, and Glen Schaffer from Indiana — in the year 1971, com- 
plained to me, as well as to other board members, that in sitting on 
that committee that they did not have any input into where the fimds 
were being spent. That they were, say, after the fact, they were told 
where the dollars went ; and they didn't think that was a proper way 
of handling TAPE. They said they'd rather — they were going out to 
the producers and explain why they should continue to voluntarily 
contribute to TAPE — but they'd rather have a program where some 
producers or someone had input, you know, before the fact. 

And then, at the time, say 2 weeks before we changed management 
and the time we changed management. Bob Isham, who was the trustee 
of TAPE, indicated that he wanted to get out as trustee of TAPE, 
that he didn't want to remain the trustee. He indicated that he had 
enoufifh work and obligations without taking care of the trust for 
TAPE. 

And, because of those two reasons, we indicated to the board, at the 
time we changed management, that we would change that system and 
go to a committee that actually approved of those expenditures before 
the fact : and that we'd set up a new trustee of the TAPE Commitltee. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it your understanding that Harold Nelson had 
substantially full responsibility for the decisions with respect to 
TAPE, prior to that time ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Technically, the answer we got was that there was 
only one trustee, you know, for TAPE, and that was Bob Isham. And 
Bob Isham could write, you know, whatever checks he deemed neces- 
sary or wanted to spend because he was the trustee. But he, on the 
advice of Harold Nelson and Dave Parr, as well as his own decisions 
as to where the funds went. 

Mr. Weitz. Getting back to January or early February of 1972, did 
Dr. Mehren explain to you why he was asked, for what reason he was 
supposed to meet with Kalmbach? How he came to go to a meeting 
with Kalmbach ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Oh, I believe he indicated something to the effect 
that Harold Nelson was encouraging him or, you know, persuading 



7643 

him that he should meet with Kalmbach; that Kalmbach had con- 
tacted — Harold was saying he should meet, and that would have 
been 

Mr. Weitz. Nelson had met with Kalmbach a couple of weeks before, 
hadn't he ? 

Mr, BuTTERBRODT. Accordiug to the Ed Wright report, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. You had no knowledge of that at the time ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Dr. Mehren didn't indicate that he knew of that at the 
time? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No ; he didn't know of it at the time. 

Mr. Weitz, At the time he talked with you, not at the time of the 
meeting. At the time he talked with you, did he indicate that he had 
any knowledge that anyone from AMPI had met with Kalmbach in 
1972? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any discussion at that time or thereafter 
about possible use or benefit that could have been gotten with relation 
to the antitrust suit for further contributions ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Why not ? 
Mr. BuTTERBRODT. It wasu't talked about. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he report back to you — did Dr. Mehren report back 
to you after the meeting with Kalmbach ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. YcS. 

Mr. Weitz. Wiat did he tell you happened ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I believe Dr. Mehren and I were together the next 
day, and as I recall, he indicated that he had a session with Kalmbach. 
I don't recall who, you know, was involved there, who was at the meet- 
ing, but he said that Kalmbach did indicate that if we wanted to make 
contributions to the Nixon people or committee, that they would set 
up State committees in which to fund money through ; and as far as 
our records would show, the money would go to State committees. 

Mr. Weitz. State Republican committees ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. He didn't really say State Republican, but State 
committees — maybe he did. You know, we're getting technical on that, 
but State committees of some sort that they could fund through. And 
as far as our records, all we had to be concerned with was that it was 
going to a State committee and it would not matter where it went 
from there. 

Mr. Weitz. Was that for the purpose, as you understood it, of not 
to show on the TAPE reports that the ultimate recipient would be the 
President's campaign ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz, What did you understand to be the purpose for conceal- 
ing, as it were, the ultimate recipient of the funds ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I guess the publicity, as much as anything. 

Mr. Sanders. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Publicity. 

Mr. Weitz, Did anyone express the concern that publicity, if I may 
characterize it, related to contributions to multiple committees and the 
price support decision of the previous year, did anyone express the con- 



7644 

cern that publicity now might reflect upon the antitrust suit? Did 
anyone connect it in that fashion ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I don't think so, no. I know the discussions the 
doctor and I would have had was that it didn't make any difference as 
far as we were concerned. We were not going to fund, because if we did 
do any funding, we could only — you know, we couldn't help ourself or 
better ourself or get anything by funding — that if we did fund, we'd 
only put the administration in the position that if they did — if we 
could work out a settlement, it would appear that they were bought 
off. So we'd be better off not to fund any committees. 

Mr. Weitz. Would that also apply to State committees which would 
not, by their name or designation, necessarily reflect the fact that they 
were Presidential campaign committees ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Well, the fact that Doc and I had agreed from 
January 12 down, that we were not going to do anything like that 
anymore, if we were going to make a contribution it would be direct ; 
we were not going to operate that way. So we wouldn't even have con- 
sidered, say, that proposal. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you dicuss this — was there a reorganization, or at 
that time was it still just the trust for TAPE ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. At that time it would have been just the trust for 
TAPE, and we were not spending any money out of it. 

Now, again, I shouldn't say that, because the record might show 
that we did spend some money out of it ; but I don't believe we did. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you discuss these alternatives with Bob Isham, who 
was still trustee ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I don't believe so, and yet I don't know. We could 
have. I didn't ; let's put it that way. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you, subsequently, learn of any further attempts by 
Mehren, or anyone else connected with TAPE, re AMPI, to make 
contributions, let's say through April of 1972 — February, March and 
April of 1972 — to the President's reelection campaign, or to the Re- 
publican Party? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Did I what ? 

Mr. Weitz. Did you subsequently learn of any attempts to make 
contributions, on the part of AMPI or TAPE, to make contributions? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you learn of any further contacts between Kalm- 
bach and Mehren ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. What were those ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Again, after Dr. Mehren made a trip to Wash- 
ington — and I believe again we were together, you know, a few days 
after that — and he indicated that when he was in Washington, he had 
met with Kalmbach and Kalmbach had indicated to him that he didn't 
want any funds from the AMPI or our political fund for the Presi- 
dent. 

Mr. Weitz. "When did this conversation take place ? Approximately 
when ? Can you place it by month ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. I would guess March. 

Mr. Weitz. March of 1972 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. YcS. 



7645 

Mr. Weitz. And you spoke with Dr. Mehren several days after he 
returned from this trip to Washington ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I believe the next day or so, but I'm not, you 
know, positive on that. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he indicate whether Kalmbach had indicated why 
he didn't want anymore money ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. He indicated that while he was in Washing- 
ton, he had a session with Kalmbach and Kalmbach indicated that 
they didn't want any funds — or didn't care for any funds from the 
milk people. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know whether anyone else was in Washington 
with Mehren at the time of the meeting with Kalmbach ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I have since learned that Harold Nelson was 
there. 

Mr. Weitz. How did you learn that? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. In talking to Dr. Mehren. 

Mr. Weitz. How recently have you talked to Dr. Mehren about 
this? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Friday and Saturday. 

Mr. Weitz. This past Friday and Saturday ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he tell you anything else about those meetings — 
meeting, rather ? 

Mr. BuTTERT^RODT. Not that I can recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he tell you anyone else he met with while he was in 
Washington on that trip ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes, he met with Mr. Connally on that trip. 

Mr. Weitz. "What did he t«ll you about that meeting? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I really don't know the details, but he indicated 
he met with him. He might have told me he met with Connally, you 
know, back in 1972, but I don't recall it, 

Mr. Weitz. Did Mehren indicate whether or not the antitrust suit 
was discussed or referred to in any way in his meeting, either with 
Kalmbach — supposedly in March of 1972 — or with Connally? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

IMr. Weitz. He didn't indica/te one way or the other ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall where you were on April 4, 1972 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. "Where were you ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I was iu Twin Cities — Mid-Am's annual meeting. 

]\Ir. Weitz. Do you recall receiving a telephone call from Dr. IVIehren 
when you were there ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't recall receiving a call. I know from the 
record I made two phone calls to San Antonio, so I perhaps talked to 
Dr. Mehren. 

Mr. Weitz. "When you say, San Antonio, do you mean AMPI's home 
ofRce ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Eight. 

Mr. Weitz. Both on April 4 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Both on April 4, and to the best of my knowledge, 
in the morning of April 4. 



7646 

Mr. Weitz. When you say, to the best of your knowledge, is that 
your recollection ? Or do the phone records indicate the time ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Well, the phone records don't indicate the time. 
I do know from the records at what time I checked out of tlie hotel. I 
turned in a car and started flying 

Mr. Weitz. The charge — ^the telephone calls were charged to your 
hotel bill, is that right ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. To the hotel room. Look under the number from 
the hoteL 

Mr. AVeitz. Do you know why you called the AMPI home office 
twice that morning, twice that day ? 

Mr. Buttekbrodt. No. It's not unusual for me to call the office twice. 
Maybe I didn't get the person I wanted the first time. I might have 
had two people to talk to. They've got a poor system of transferring 
calls in the San Antonio office. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall anything about those two calls ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you talk to Dr. Mehren twice that day ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I don't know if I talked to him at all. I believe I 
would have if I called twice. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know whether you talked to Dr. Mehren that 
day ? Whether or not you called him or he called you ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I'm not positive, no. 

Mr. Weitz. Didn't Dr. Mehren call you that day and ask your ap- 
proval or advice with respect to a substantial contribution the next 
day or so, prior to April 7, to the Republicans ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't bclicve so. If he did, I don't recall it. I 
don't recall that he talked to me about that. 

Mr. Weitz. Have you ever approved a contribution of over $50,000 ? 

Mr. Green. At any time? 

Mr. Weitz. In the last 4 years ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Those were what, the two contributions in October 1972 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Other than those two times — you recall those, I take it? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Those were each of $150,000 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Uh-huh. 

Mr. Weitz. We'll return to that in a minute. You recall those, do 
you recall any others of that magnitude ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you believe that, had you approved or been asked for 
approval with respect to any contribution of, let's say, over $100,000, 
that you would remember it ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Ycs, because I remember the $25,000 ones, which 
was probably the next biggest ones. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you talk to Jake Jacobsen that day, the 4th ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. How about on the 31st, March 31 ? Did you talk to Jake 
Jacobsen that day ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you have any knowledge of a meeting that took 
place on April 4 iii the San Antonio home office which included Dr. 



7647 

Mehren and Mr. Nelson. and which included reference or discussion of 
possible contributions, substantial contributions to the Kepublicans, 
prior to April 7, 1972? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Ycs, when we got the Ed Wright report, the 
report shows that there was a meeting there in which Bob Lilly indi- 
cated that Dr. Mehren picked up the phone and called me from that 
meeting that was held that afternoon and that's why I made such 
an effort to check my records to see where I was, because Bob Lilly in- 
dicates that Dr. Mehren picked up the phone and called me. And, if 
that were a fact, to the best of my records, I was flying in the air over 
Wisconsin, someplace at that particular time, and so Dr. Mehren 
would have had to be able to call the airplane in order to talk to me at 
the time that Bob Lilly indicates. 

Mr. Weitz. Aside trom the time Bob Lilly indicated, you don't re- 
call any calls from Dr. Mehren that day ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. Quite apart from any particular calls, you recall no 
discussions of that sort that day ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. 

Mr. Weftz. Did you talk to Gary Hanman about the other $150,000 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. How about $75 or $100,000? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. sir. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you talk to members of the other co-ops in 1972 ? 
Let's say the first 4 months of 1972, the others being mid-America 
and 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I don't believe so. 

Mr. Weitz. Or to the President's reelection ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't bclieve so. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Weitz. Are you aware that 50 checks, each for $5^000, totaling 
$150,000, were drawn apparently on April 4, 1972, on the CTAPE 
account and voided sometime the next day or so ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Have you ever discussed that with Dr. Mehren? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. We discussed 30 checks, but not 50 

Mr. Weitz. I'm sorry. Thirty checks each in the amount of $5,000. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes, I have discussed that with Dr. Mehren. 

Mr. Weitz. Was that just this past weekend ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. I would say it was perhaps either late in 
1973 or early 1974, after — I don't know, you, or someone started asking 
Dr. Mehren about them. 

They called me and asked me what I knew about those 30 checks, if 
I could shed some light on those 30 checks, and I indicated no, I 
couldn't. And I still can't, you know. If they were reported, if Dr. 
Mehren — he could have told me about them. If he did, I don't recall. 
You know, it was insignificant. The money wasn't spent. I can't say 
that someone didn't tell me about it, but to me it was so insignificant 
that I don't remember 

Mr. Weitz. It was insignificant when ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. All I'm saying is if someone, you know, told me 
about it at that time on Api'il 4th or 5th, whenever, that it was voided 
or what, I don't recall it. I have no recollection. 



7648 

Mr. Wettz. You said, yourself, at the time of the transition in Janu- 
ary of 1972, a policy was established by Dr. Mehren that reorganiza- 
tion would take place and that, at least for the time being — perhaps 
for 30 days or the time the reorganization would take place — there 
would be no spending of funds. 

In fact, that was your understanding before you went out to see Mr. 
Kalmbach and yet on April 4, 1972, checks totaling $150,000 are drawn 
and, presumably shortly thereafter, voided. 

Now, at the time, had someone mentioned to you "we almost con- 
tributed $150,000 to somebody or something?" That wouldn't be in- 
significant, I take it ? 

Mr. Greex. I think I, for the most part, have not interrupted and 
have not tried to make any comments on the interrogation. But I don't 
know that a question like that serves any useful purpose, because he 
says he has no recollection. It's in a philosophical vein and I don't 
think it advances anything materially. 

Mr. Weitz. To be more specific. Dr. Mehren has testified, and it's a 
matter of record, that he signed those checks that were ultimately 
voided. 

Now on April 5. 1972, did you meet with him in some type of an- 
nual — some type of regional meeting of AMPI ? 

Mr. BuTFERBRODT. We Had a board meeting on the 5th. Now I should 
also point out to you that we had restructured, you know, the com- 
mittee for TAPE, by April — I believe it was in March, at our March 
board meeting. We had restructured TAPE and from that point on 
had a committee of fovu* that had to approve any expenditures, so 
that $150,000 or those checks could not go out without approval of at 
least three people on that committee. 

Mr. Weitz. You were a member of that committee ? 

Mr. BuTTERERODT. Ycs, and I did meet with — or was at the same 
meeting. We had a board meeting in Fond du Lac, Wis., on April 5 
at which Dr. Mehren came up and spoke to the board, at which 
time the board approved going to the delegates and asking them for 
an increase in checkoffs in that region. 

And, again, because in my — you know, what affected me at that 
particular time was again producers and the increase in checkoff, and 
keeping AMPI alive and financially sound, you know, was more im- 
portant. 

But, by the same token, those checks could not liave gone out with- 
out getting committee approval. And I don't believe the committee 
was asked for approval. 

Mr. Weitz. But the normal course, before they would have gone out, 
would have been to ask for their approval ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. That's right. 

Mr. Weitz. "\^nio is Dwight Morris? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Dwight is a dairy farmer in Arkansas ; a former 
secretary of AMPI. 

Mr. Weitz. A secretary to the board ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Board secretary, office of secretary. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have occasion to meet with him in April of 
1972? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. Was that on April 11, 1972? 



7649 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. Where was that meeting? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Ill Chicago. 

Mr. Weitz. What was the purpose of the meeting? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Well, the purpose was probably threefold. I met 
with Mr. Grossman, who is a lawyer in Chicago. I went to him for 
advice on various subjects in 1972. I met with Mr. Grossman that 
morning at which time he finalized the 9- or 10-page document for 
me, as to the removal of Dwight jNIorris and other board members from 
Arkansas from the board of directors. 

Dwight had gotten involved in the formation of Southern Milk 
Producers in Arkansas. I'd refer to it as a rump group within AMPI 
and some of us felt — the board felt that he had a conflict of inter- 
est and we should remove him from our corporate board. And I 
went to Mr. Grossman and went over in detail with him that morning, 
the procedure we had to follow under our AMPI by-laws and the 
Kansas law — which we were incorporated under the law of the State 
of Kansas — and how the Kansas law affected the removal of a board 
member who had a conflict of interest. 

I had previously written to Dwight and asked him to resign from 
the board, and resign as secretary, and I spent the morning with ]Mr. 
Grossman getting the detailed document as to what procedure I had 
to follow to remove Dwight. 

The second purpose of the meeting was to ask Dwight for our 
corporate seal back. Dwight was the secretary involved with a rump 
group. There were some of us concerned that he would use the cor- 
porate seal, not in the best interests of AMPI. 

He had chosen not to attend board meetings and for a number of 
reasons, we needed the seal in the hands of our assistant secretary to 
conduct business. 

And, third, I wanted to talk to Dwight about, was there any possi- 
bility of working out our differences with the southern milk group, 
the rump group. 

Mr. Weitz. I take it you discussed these various matters with him 
at that meeting? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you also refer, in any way, to the antitrust suit? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No ; I don't believe so. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you refer, in any way, to any contacts that Mehren 
had or your people had had with the administration or Republican 
fundraisers in 1972 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you refer to any political contributions or attempted 
political contributions? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I clou't belicve so, no. 

Mr. Weitz. In the Wright report there is an account of a telephone 
conversation between Mr. Heininger and Mr. Dwight Morris, sup- 
posedly recounting part of the meeting, the substance of part of the 
meeting he had with you on April 11. 

We have information directly from Mr. Morris, but limiting our- 
selves for the moment to the account in the Wright report — the account 
refers to the fact that you related to Mr. Morris an attempt by Meh- 
ren — an agreement between Mehren and Kalmbach. to contribute — 



7650 

TAPE to contribute a large amount of money, perhaps $300,000, to 
fix the antitrust suit. 

I take it that you did not engage in any such discussion with Mr. 
Morris to that effect on that day ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I don't think you're relating the Ed Wright report 
accurately, to start with. 

As I recall, the Ed Wright report, and what Dwight Morris said, 
was that I went to Washington and met with various officials or 
attempted to, and then he indicated that I went to California and met 
with Kalmbach and that I related that to him. 

Mr. Weitz. You did not go to California ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Weitz. And you did not meet with Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. And you did not tell him that Mehren had met with 
Kalmbach ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz, Mehren had met with Kalmbach ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. That's right. 

Mr. Weitz. You did not tell him that attempted contributions or an 
agreement had been made to make contributions ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir, there was no such agreement. 

Mr. Weitz. How do you know that ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I talked to Dr. Mehren. 

Mr. Weitz. He told you there wasn't any ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. That's right. 

Mr. Weitz. You weren't present at any of the meetings with Mr. 
Kalmbach ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. You weren't at any of the meetings with Dr. Mehren 
in Washington ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. 

Mr. Green. I'd like you to also ask him if he's been to Washington. 

Mr. Weitz. Ever? 

Mr. Green. Aside from these meetings. 

Mr. Weitz. I'm sorry ? 

Mr. Green. Aside from the meeting with the President. 

As I understand in the Wright report — I haven't got it in front of 
me, I read it some days ago — but there's some reference, I believe, 
and I may be imprecise as to Mr. Butterbrodt traipsing around cer- 
tain agencies or certain areas, and it might be helpful to ask him — ^it 
might be helpful to dig it out, to get the actual 

Mr. Weitz. Let's go off the record a minute. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Butterbrodt, apparently not in the statement in- 
cluded in the Wright report, but in some other public statements, Mr. 
Morris has alleged that he believes you told him at that April meet- 
ing, that you had been to Washington and visited with a number of 
agencies, including the FTC and the Justice Department, and such. 

Have you ever had occasion to go to any of those agencies or meet 
with anyone there ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No ; my records show from January 12 to April 
11, I was not in Washington. D.C. And on no occasion have I been 
to the Justice building or the FTC. 



7651 

Mr. Weitz. Dr. Mehren, as you've testified, was in Washington at 
least once during that period ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz, Do you know where he went ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you understand, either from public testimony or the 
Wright report, or any other source, of Mr. Morris' allegations that he 
was necessarily referring to you in the first pei-son, that is, John But- 
terbrodt, having gone to those places or that representatives of AMPI 
had done so ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. His reference was that I went, and I think, in some 
public statements he's made since, he has changed that to say that when 
he refers to John Butterbrodt, he's referring to AMPI personnel. 

Mr. Weitz. I don't — and counsel may be veiy quick to point out — 
I don't like to engage in speculation, but let me ask you this question. 

If you had met with him, or described your activities — I shouldn't 
say "your" activities, that's the very problem — activities of Dr. 
Mehren, and you had said "we," would you understand— would that 
be an explanation for Dwight Morris' assumption that you, person- 
ally, John Butterbrodt, had engaged in certain activities ? 

Mr. Greex, Don't 

Mr. Weitz. You don't want him to answer that ? 

Mr. Greex. I don't think he should answer that. 

Mr. Weitz. I take it you did not tell him that either A^NIPI or any 
of its representatives or in a collective sense "we" had done any of the 
things he had mentioned ; that is, meet with Mr. Kalmbach or go to 
Washington, or make an agreement to make contributions or related 
matters ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. That's right. 

Mr. Weitz. Although some of those facts would have been true : 
that is, Dr. Mehren having gone to Washington and also having met 
with Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Greex. If you limit it to that. 

Mr. Weitz. If vou had said that, that would have been true. But 
you say you didn't tell him that or any of the other matters ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. That is possible, but I don't believe that that issue 
or subject came up whatsoever. 

Mr. Weitz. I'd like to snow you Lilly exhibit 28 * which is a memo- 
randum from Dr. Mehren, plus an attacneU letter, une or cue ad- 
dressees is yourself, addressees of Dr. IMehren's memorandum. Have 
you ever seen that memorandum or attached letter ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I've seen this, yes. 

Mr, Weitz. It's been marked as an exhibit in Lilly's session, and we 
need not mark it again. If I may characterize it, the letter refers to a 
request by the Democratic National Committee for a contribution 
from TAPE for the purchase of convention booldets at the 1972 con- 
vention. 

Mr. Butterbrodt. For both 

Mr. Greex. Let me object to the characterization. I don't see the word 
"contribution." 

Mr. Weitz, For the purchase ? 

Mr. Greex. For the purchase. 



» See Book 14, p. 6186. 



7652 

Mr. Weitz. I believe the cover memorandum from Dr. Mehren 
refers to the fact that the other national committee wants to do the 
same. My question is, do you recall any request or discussion in con- 
nection with requests by the two national committees for TAPE to 
purchase convention booklets from the two conventions? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes, and they're both mentioned in the letter. 

Mr. Weitz. So both the letter and the cover memorandum refer to 
them? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Both the Republicans and the Democrats. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know whether that matter was ever discussed 
by the committee, the four of you together ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't know if we were together when it was dis- 
cussed, or it was discussed by phone, but the four of us did discuss it ; 

Mr. Weitz. Now we have another exhibit, Lilly 29,* which consists 
of a cover memorandum from Mehren to Bob Lilly and an attached 
letter which I believe also refers to the same matter. Have you ever 
seen that memorandum or the attached letter? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. What was the question ? 

Mr. Weitz. Have you ever seen that letter ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't bclicve so ; no. 

Mr. Weitz. Now the attached memorandum, which has been identi- 
fied in another executive session, says "Please return to me with demo 
letter for TAPE group here on 3/30," which would be March 30, and 
the date of this is March 29, and the letter is dated March 27, 1972. 

Now your expense reports, which you submitted to the Associated 
Milk Producers, Inc., indicated on March 30, 1972, you were in 
San Antonio for an executive board meeting. Do you recall on that oc- 
casion meeting with the TAPE committee to discuss these requests by 
the Democratic and Republican National Committees ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't recall, but the records you have in front 
of you should show that because the minutes of the TAPE committee — 
if the TAPE committee met, you should have minutes of it. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know what was done with the requests, whether 
they were approved or refused ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. They were refused. 

Mr. Weitz. What was the reason for that ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I don't really know, other than I didn't think we 
were getting our money's worth for $100,000 — I believe it was $100,000 
for each committee, or each party — am I right? For each party 
$100,000? 

Mr. Weitz. Yes ; I think so. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I didn't think we were getting our money's worth 
for programs. No. 1, and, if my memory serves me right, I believe some 
of the people, you know — I believe Jake Jacobsen's name was men- 
tioned as working on this project, and I guess I was so gun shy of some 
of the former people like that, that were involved, that I just couldn't 
see it. So, for my money, it wasn't a good program. 

Mr. Weitz. I'd like to show you for identification the letter from Mr. 
Heininger, dated January 21, 1974, to Kenneth Parkinson, attorney for 



* See Book 14, p. 6189. 



7653 

the Committee To Re-Elect the President. I believe that you've said 
you've seen that letter and I'd like you to identify it, please. Is this a 
copy of the letter ? 

Mr. Green. Could we go off the record ? 

Mr. Weitz. Sure. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Weitz. Is that a copy of the letter ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Let me mark it as exhibit 1 to your session. 

[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Butterbrodt 
exhibit No. 1, for identification.*] 

Mr. Weitz. Finally, I think you referred to several — ^two large con- 
tributions, each of $150,000, that you had knowledge of in October of 
1972. Would you tell us, did you approve those or have knowledge of 
those in the course of your activities for the committee for TAPE ? 

Mr. BurrERBRODT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. Wlio asked for your approval ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I believe we were at a committee meeting of 
TAPE when it was discussed, about fimding those committees. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know when that meeting took place ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. It would have been in October of 1972. 

Mr. Weitz. Just so the record is clear, there is a record of an Octo- 
ber 11, 1972, meeting at which time the committee for TAPE voted — 
I believe the records indicate — not to contribute any funds to the 
Presidential campaign, but to contribute $25,000 each to the Repub- 
lican and Democratic congressional campaign committees. Do you 
recall that meeting and that decision ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I recall that meeting, but I don't recall that deci- 
sion, and I've seen the minutes of that meeting and again, I question 
whether those minutes are accurate. I don^ keep the minutes. 

Mr. Weitz. "\^Tio keeps the minutes ? Or, who's responsible for com- 
piling them ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Bob Lilly keeps the minutes. 

Mr. Weitz. So you're saying that you're not sure that that decision 
was made, or any such decision 

Mr. Butterbrodt. It was made. But I don't know if it was $25,000 
for each committee. 

Mr. Weitz. I'm saying October 11, 1972. 

Mr. Butterbrodt. My recollection was we had approved funding to 
those committees, but the dollar amounts 

Mr, Weitz. What do you mean "the dollar amounts"? Was that left 
open, or what? 

Mr. Butferbrodt. The minutes show that we gave $25,000 to each 
committee and, No. 1, looking back, I can see no real reason for giving 
$25,000 to each committee when what we really talked about was a 
balancing effect, as far as payments were concerned, and wanted to 
balance out the payments to the two parties. And we talked about 
using those four committees as a method of balancing the payments 
out. 

Mr. Weitz. Just so I understand, were there two committee meet- 
ings in October at which this matter was discussed, or just one? 

• See p. 7674. 



7654 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I think just one. 

Mr. Weitz. Whenever that took place, it was at that meeting, to 
the best of your recollection, a discussion and a decision to approxi- 
mately balance out contributions through those committees that I 
mentioned, was made? 

Mr. BiTTTERBRODT. Right. We might have left the dollar amount — 
you know. Bob Lilly, or somebody, to come up with a dollar amount as 
to how much it would take to balance out. 

• But my recollection was that, you know, we talked about balancing 
out. those payments and I believe, if you checked the TAPE records, 
you would find that after, you know, let's say at the time of the 
election, or at the end of November, if you checked the record on 
November 15, you would find that the payments that were made in 
October, after all those payments were made and we got to this, you 
know, that point that the Democrats for the year — now I'm talking 
about local, State. Governor races, everything — the Democrats got 
as much as the Republicans and that's what I mean by "balancing out," 
and that was the method or vehicle, to use those four committees to 
balance out those payments. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall whether at that meeting, or in connection 
with that meeting, anyone mentioned any recent solicitations by 
Republican fundraisers for the President, such as Lee Nunn ? 

ivxi". ijU'iiERiiKODT. No. As I recall — I mean it would help with the 
dates, but I thought that Dr Mehren met with Lee Nunn after 
October 11. 

Mr. Weitz. That's true. So you are fairly certain, then, that the 
meeting you're talking about, at which this decision was made for 
substantial contributions to balance out, and your recollection was in 
excess — or different than necessarily $25,000 each — was made at a 
meeting on or around October 11, in advance of the time when Dr. 
Mehren met with Lee Nunn ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. YcS. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have occasion, after that meeting between 
Mehren and Nunn, to discuss those contributions or any other contri- 
butions with him to these committees, these four committees ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. With Dr. Mehren ? 

Mr. Weitz. With Dr. Mehren. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't recall. I'm sure we talked about it because, 
again I was in San Antonio the day before Lee Nunn came in to 
meet with Dr. Mehren. And again Dr. Mehren asked me if I wanted 
to stay over and meet with Lee Nunn and again I indicated, as I did 
earlier in the year, that, you know, there's no basic reason for me to 
spend anotlier night in San Antonio, spent part of my weekend in San 
Antonio, to meet with Lee Nunn because we were on record as not 
funding the Nixon people and we told that to Senator McGrovern. 
We had met earlier with Senator McGovern and as I indicated all 
along, you know, we were on record as not funding — and again, 
knowing wno Lee Nunn was, he wasn't the type of individual that I 
would have said to Dr. Mehren, "don't meet with him." "N^lien he 
asked my advice, it was "meet with him, don't commit yourself, don't 
make him sore at us. But, by the same token, if nothing else, tell liim 
that, you know, I'm the fault, I'm the problem, or the committee's 
the problem, but we are not going to fund." So I did not stay over for 



7655 

the meeting, and I'm sure that Dr. Mehren informed me that night 
or the following Monday about the meeting with Lee Nunn. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember what he told you about the meeting ? 

Mr, BuTTERBRODT. I don't really recall. I do recall that Dr. Mehren 
met on tliat Saturday with President Johnson, too. 

Mr. Weitz. He told you about that ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember anything about that discussion? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I do recall, and maybe — and visiting this weekend 
on that issue — that I do recall that Dr. Mehren made a statement that 
President Johnson indicated that by funding those Senate and con- 
gressional committees, that a candidate running for President could 
get some value or good from those contributions. And so we could also 
be helping both Presidential candidates by funding those committees. 

Mr. Weitz. But you didn't want to help the Presidential candidates? 

Mr, BuTTERBRODT. That was not our intent, no, 

Mr. Weitz. Did he ask for your approval in connection with an addi- 
tional $150,000, each to the Republican Senatorial and Congressional 
Campaign Committees ? 

Mr, BuTTERBRODT. I'm under the impression that that was given 
earlier, but I could be wrong. Again, the records would show when ap- 
proval was received for the $150,000, 

There was discussion about — as far as that money going to those 
committees — that a detailed letter would be written indicating that 
that was not a commitment, or that we were not tying anybody's 
hands as to where those dollars could go, but that that committee that 
received them could, you know, use it for whatever, wherever they 
wanted to, 

Mr, Weitz, Was it your understanding that if they had a surplus 
they could transfer it on to the national committee ? 

Mr, BuTTERBRODT. No, that was not my understanding. 

Mr. Weitz, Just so I am clear, because there are a number of dates 
and a number of meetings here, do you recall appro\ang, after the 
meeting between Nunn and Mehren — specifically approving — an ad- 
ditional contribution to the Republican congressional and senatorial 
committees, $150,000 each, above and beyond what had been deter- 
mined previous to the meeting between Mehren and Nunn? 

Mr. Green, There's been no testimony as to what has been deter- 
mined, what amount was determined. 

Mr, Weitz, I gather his testimony is that a meeting was held on 
October 11. It was decided to balance out. And that the amounts were 
left to Lilly or somebody to figure out. Is that correct ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT, Evcn at that time we were talking that it would 
take something like $210,000 to balance out. That figure has always 
rung a bell with me, as far as what it would take to balance out, Mel 
Besemer, you know, he said we should balance it out, and I think 
Preach Griffith said the same thing. 

You see. one of the problems we have had and we've got again with 
the TAPE fund is, at the end of the year, if you give more money to 
the Democrats than you do to the Republicans, then all the Republi- 
cans are biting on you all the time. And, if you give more to the 
Democrats than the Republicans, even though you look at 2 years or 
3 years and it comes out even, you still get bit every year. And this 



7656 

last year, I didn't pay enough attention — or the committee didn't pay 
enough attention — and we put more money in one party than the 
other, and we got bit hard on it and I maintain — that year, I made a 
point out of the fact that we want to balance it out. 

And again, I haven't looked at the record, but I think that the rec- 
ord would show that we did balance out and that was the purpose of 
funding those committees, was to balance out. 

Mr. Weitz. And the approval for that was given, in principle, on 
October 11? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. On October 11, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. And I'm asking you whether you gave any approval, 
either in principle or for specific sums, for additional contributions 
after the Mehren-Nunn meeting on October 21, other than what you 
had already approved on October 11 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I could havc, but I don't recall. It would have 
been all one kind of program, before or after. The Nunn meeting had no 
significance as to what dollars or where it was going. 

Mr. Weitz. Suppose, if in fact it is the case, the Democratic contri- 
butions had already been drawn up before the Nunn-Mehren meeting, 
and the- — in other words, that two $25,000 checks had eacli been drawn 
up for the Democratic congressional and senatorial committees before 
the 21st 

Mr. Green. Let's ask him if he knows that. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know that ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, I dou't 

Mr. Weitz. When Mehren talked to you, after the meeting on the 
21st, you had no knowledge of what had been spent or what hadn't 
been spent? 

Mr. Btjtterbrodt. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. Was he asking you for any further approval ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I guess maybe I'm confused here, because I 
thought it was, you know, like $47,000 and $60,000 went to the Demo- 
cratic committees, and not $25,000, but ^'ou're losing me on figures now. 

Mr. Weitz. You're saying that all of this was part of a continuum 
from October 11, so once you gave the approval in principle on Octo- 
ber 11, you can pinpoint or recall no specific approval jou gave for 
any separate contribution other than the one, in principle, you ap- 
proved on October 11 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. That's right. But they might have come back and 
said look, this is what we're going to do. They might have called back 
and said, these are the figures, now is it OK with these figures? And T 
would have said yes, because in principle, as long as it was a balancing 
out effect — now, when I say that I also have to say that at one time 
in the committee meeting we discussed, you know, giving so much 
money to the Republicans to balance out, and Mel Besemer, or some- 
body indicated "well, if you're going to use those national committees, 
you should give some to the Democrats at the same time." You know, 
at that level. Even though — in other words, if my figures were — say 
we had to srive $210,000 to the Republicans to balance out, and some- 
one said "well, let's give $90,000 or $100,000 to the two or four— two 
Democratic committees," then we'd have to o^ive, say, another $100,000 
or $90,000 to the Republican committees. But the dollar amounts, I 
don't recall exactly what they were — only that we were going to fund 



7657 

the four committees and whatever we gave x committee, we were going 
to balance out — so it did balance out at the end. Because we were 
talking, you know, in a range of $300,000, or $350,000, that we were 
going to spend. 

Mr. Weitz. Overall ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Overall. 

Mr. Weitz. To all four committees? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. WErrz. Can you explain why $350,000 was contributed to the 
two Republican committees and thereby either requiring, according 
to the principle you've outlined, around $150,000 to the two Demo- 
cratic committees? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. As I indicated. I know Mel Besemer, a Democrat, 
indicated if we were going to put that kind of money in the Republi- 
can — the national level — we should also put some money in the Demo- 
crats at that level. 

And T believe — I don't know what the minutes would show, but if 
I recall — we had a letter from a contributor that kind of went along 
the lines of, you know, we gave this money as producers, we put the 
money in the fund, and hell, you should use it all ; you shouldn't be 
sitting on it. And we had a lot of members that were asking, you know, 
are you going to spend the money ? We put it in there, are you going 
to spend it ? 

And so, there was also discussion about spending the money. In 
other words, if you've got $600,000, or $650,000. we should spend'^it in 
the election. And with that in mind, we talked about, vou know, spend- 
ing $300,000 or $400,000. And one of the problems we had, we wanted 
to balance out at the same time. 

Mr. Sanders. I want to go off the record a minute. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Sanders. "^^Hiere is your home ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. It s at Route 1, Burnett, Wis. 

Mr. Sanders. Is that where your dairy farm is located ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. That's the dairy operation. I live within 150 feet 
of the barn. I still manage the operation, go down to the barn when 
I'm home. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have some business in connection with the 
office you've identified, aside from the farming business ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. I spend on the average of a day to a day 
and a half a week in the office at Fond du Lac, Wis. The rest of the 
time I spend at meetings or in travel. 

Besides serving as president of AMPI, and again because the presi- 
dent is not a part of management or running the operation, I also 
serve, for example, on the board of directors of the United Dairy 
Association. I serve on the board of directors of the American Dairy 
Association. I serve on the National Dairy Council board. I serve on 
the national DRINC, which is Dairy Researcn, Inc., board. While I 
do not serve on the National Milk Producers Federation board, I am 
active in their activities through the national organization and so with 
the other organizations, and connecting responsibilities as well as 
producers' meetings, I spend a great deal of time traveling and at 
meetings. 



7658 

Mr. Sanders. The office that you go to is connected with papers, 
and all these other matters ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Well, basically, board and other functions, 
agendas and so forth, plus the fact that all property is, of course, in 
the name of the corporation. I have to sign for any property we sell, 
and we do, through the merger we acquired a lot of plants and prop- 
erty and equipment that cannot be sold without my name, so there are 
legal documents itself, you know, most of the time, that's sizable. 

Mr. Sanders. Are you salaried by AMPI ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. You receive only out-of-pocket expenses? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, I rcceive out-of-pocket expenses as well as 
in dairy terms that we refer to it as per diem, and the Government 
looks at per diem as expenses, but in this case, I receive a payment 
for those days that I actually work or spend on AMPI business or 
dairy-related business. And, if I spend a half a day, I get a half a 
day's per diem. And if I spend all day, I get 1 day. And if I spend 
24 hours, I still get 1 day. 

Mr. Sanders. Prior to your assumption of the office of president in 
November 1969, were you a corporate officer of MPI ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. I was not part of MPI. 

Mr. Sanders. Were you part of some group or association which 
was merged into AMPI ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Ycs. I was serving as first vice president of Pure 
Milk Association. Their office was in Chicago and Pure Milk Asso- 
ciation merged into AMPI on November 1, 1969. 

Mr. Sanders. How do you spell that ? 

Mr. Weitz. "Pure" 

Mr. Sanders. Pure Milk. I do know how to spell "Pure". 

Is it correct, then, that for TAPE, as opposed to CTAPE, you had 
no official position on the administering body ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. That's right. 

Mr. Sanders. Were you, nevertheless, consulted at times on contri- 
butions to be made from that fund ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir, never. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you ever make suggestions for disposition of the 
funds? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I doubt it. I might have made, you know, one or 
two small suggestions, say for a local Consrressman or Senator in my 
area, but I don't recall, you know, that I did. 

I did attend both the Democrat and the Eepublican national fund- 
raising dinner with tickets purchased out of the TAPE fund, either 
in 1970 or 1971. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you — and again I'm speaking strictly with regard 
to TAPE — did j'ou make any suggestions for contributions to be made 
to Senator Humphrey for his Presidential campaign, regardless of the 
year? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, of course I think he only ran once. 

Mr. Sanders. What I mean is whether in 1969, 1970 or 1971 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. I don't believe so, althousfh I think since the 
committee — are vou talking about the Committee for TAPE ? 

Mr. Sanders. I'm talking about TAPE. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I would say — well now you're talking about 



7659 

Mr. Sanders. TAPE, not CTAPE. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, I doii't believe so. I don't think I ever put — 
I wouldn't have to put in a request for Humphrey because he had 
closer friends on the TAPE committee than me. 

Mr. Sanders. Who is your Congressman ? 

Mr. BuTTEKBRODT. Kasteumeier. 

Mr. Saxders. With respect to CTAPE, have you made any sug- 
gestions for the disposition of funds to Senator Humphrey's Presi- 
dential campaign in 1972 ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I wouldn't have. Again, because Mel Besemer, 
who is also a committee — a member of the committee for TAPE, is 
from Minnesota and a close friend of Senator Humphrey's would 
have made that — I might have made the motion, you know, on rex'ord, 
but Mel Besemer would have come in with the recommendation or 
suggestion. 

Mr. Sanders. Have you, individually, made proposals for contribu- 
tions from that fund for any other Democratic Presidential 
candidates ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I don't know — I wouldn't have originated, say, 
a proposal. I carried — or after one of the board members talked to 
me, I know I requested a contribution for Senator Jackson, you know, 
at my request. But it didn't originate with me, it came from other 
board members. 

I'm aware of, you know, other contributions, but I don't believe I — 
there were not, and still are not even today— I don't generate many 
requests. I did for Bob Kastenmeier. I put in a request for Bob Kasten- 
meier on my own volition, but other than that, I'm not that close to 
the political end that I would make a, you know, recommendation or 
suggestion to the committee. It would come from somebody else. It 
might come to mo then I'd go to the committee with it, not on my own. 

Mr. Sanders. You're aware that Congressman Mills received a 
$25,000 contribution from CTAPE ? 

Mr. BurrERBRODT. That's right. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you participate in the deliberation on that 
contribution ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. Are you knowledgeable as to whether those delibera- 
tions appear in the minutes of CTAPE ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I'm not aware. I'm sure they must — well, I don't 
know. I don't think they'd show up in the minutes because I believe 
that was a telephone conference or a telephone, you know, approval. 
But the records would show that it was approved by the various com- 
mittee members — I assume the records will show that. 

Mr. Sanders. Eather than have a formal meeting, it was — — 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I'm not sure when, but I'm aware of the 
contribution. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you know who generated that request? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. I couldn't say for sure. 

Mr. Sanders. You don't recall who spoke with you about it? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No, I really don't. It could have been, you know, 
anyone of the committee. It could have been Dr. Mehren. 

Mr. Sanders. Could it have been Dave Parr? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No, it couldn't have been Dave Parr. 



7660 

Mr. Sanders. You say that because you don't have many conserva- 
tions with him ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Two reasons. One, since January 1972 Dave Parr 
and I rarely speak and Avhen we do we don't speak vr-y friendly to Oiie 
another, and I believe if Dave Parr had called and asked for it, I 
would have voted no, so I'm sure it was not Dave Parr because Dave 
Parr doesn't call me. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have any recollection of any contemporaneous 
explanation of why $25,000 would be allocated to Congressman Mills, 
from the person Avho proposed the sum ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. You're asking me why we gave $25,000 ? 

Mr. Sanders. Yes. 

Mr. Green. For clarification, are you asking why they gave, or why 
they gave $25,000? 

Mr. Sanders. I wanted to know, first, if whoever suggested it, the 
sum, offered any reason to accompany it? 

And then I'm going to ask him if 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't belie ve anybody — whoever it was, whether 
it was Dr. Mehren or Preach Griffiith, or Bob Lilly that called in regard 
to this sum — I don't believe whoever it was would haA'e explained 
to me why, only that Mills at that time was a candidate for a nominee 
for President, and they Avould not have had to explain to me, why 
that amount, or I would not have questioned that amount. 

Mr. Mills— Mr, Chairman, as we refer to him — is very knowledge- 
able in the dairy industry, understands- — and it's the purpose, again, 
of the political funds — the reasons the producers put them in there, is 
to trv and get friends elected to positions, be it Congress. Senate, or 
President, and if $25,000 would have helped Congressman Mills to get 
nominated or to get to the White House, he is a friend of the dairy 
industry and I recognize him as a friend of the dairy industry and 
he has voted favorably for the dairy industry and so we would support 
him and help him in his efforts. 

Mr. Sanders. Was that not a greater sum than was allocated to 
Senator Humphrey ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I believc so, only on the basis that I think that 
was the largest contribution to any single candidate, and that's why 
it stands out in my mind. 

That's not to say that Senator Humphrey is not a friend of the 
dairy industry. 

Mr. Sanders. Senator Humphrey doesn't chair a committee that 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, I bclievc it was more a case at that particular 
time, at the time of the Democratic National Convention, or the week 
prior to it, when the $25,000 commitment was made. Senator Hum- 
phrey was not in the running for nomination at that time. And of 
those people in the running for Democratic nominee. Congressman 
Mills was a better friend of the industry. 

IMr. Sanders. Are you aware of any support by Chairman Mills for 
statutorily increasing the milk price level in March of 1971 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I'm aware that he w^as, you know, supporting our 
position, yes. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you have any personal contact with him in Feb- 
ruary and March of 1971, for the purpose of discussing the milk price 
level? 



7661 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I met with Chairman Mills, but I couldn't recall 
whether it was in February or March of 1971. It was not significant 
if I did. I might have been in his office and out, or something like that, 
but no detailed session with him. 

Mr. Saxders. Without regard to the time, would the purpose stand 
out in your mind, that is, that the meeting was in connection with an 
increase in the milk price ? 

Have you ever talked with Congressman Mills about increasing the 
price support for milk ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't bclievc I did, no, and I don't believe I was, 
you know, in a session with him. I'm sure because people have re- 
ported that other people have. Again, there's people a lot closer to 
Chairman INIills than what I am, and therefore, they would have 
talked to him about those issues. 

Mr. Saxders. Did other key officials in AMPI report to you in the 
early months of 1971, any contacts with Congressman Mills concern- 
ing the support for milk? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Ycs, thev would have given reports. I think at 
times they asked Chairman INIills for recommendations as to, you 
know, what they should do or how they should handle the program to 
try and reverse, you know, the de^'ision on price support. 

Mr. Saxders. In the early months of 1971, did you learn of any af- 
firmative actions on his part to enhance the prospect of an increase in 
milk support? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I bclicve he had his name — no, I don't know if 
he did have his name on one of the bills. In fact, I don't think he did 
have his name on one, I really don't know. Did he have it on ? 

jNIr. Greex. If you don't know, you don't know. 

]Mr. Saxders. Are you aware of any efforts on his part to persuade 
members of the administration to support an increase? 

iNIr. BuTTERBRODT. No, I'm not aware, although he may have, but 
I'm not aware. 

Mr. Saxders. Was the $25,000 allocation to him from CTAPE re- 
lated to his attitude toward the price-support level in 1971 and any 
efforts on his part ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. That would not have any bearing on it. 

Mr. Saxders. You stated earlier that you regarded Congressman 
Mills as a friend of the dairy industry. Such a characterization is a 
composite of his many postures on various laws and regulations affect- 
ing the dairy industry, is it not ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Yes. 

Mr. Sax^ders. Including dairy imports? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. YcS. 

ISIr. Saxders. Would it not include the milk price-support level to be 
fixed each year? 

Mr. Greex. Well, I think the question is starting to get argumenta- 
tive with the witness because he has indicated that it's on a variety of 
factors. He has not been asked to define what he means by "friend." It 
might be more instructive to ask him that, if that's the purpose of the 
inquiry. But I don't think that — I think he's given his answer basically 
to the line of questioning. 

Go ahead and rephrase it and he'll try to answer it to the best of his 
ability. 



7662 

Mr. Sanders. I giiess it boils down to this : Are you saying, Mr. But- 
terbrodt, that the support of Congressman Mills for an increase in the 
price level for milk in 1971, does not enter into your characterization of 
him as a friend of the dairy industry ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I'd answer by saying it could, but I'm not aware 
of what his activities were in 1971, only that they were favorable to the 
dairy industry. 

Really, when I say "a friend of the industry," I recall that there's 
times that we've talked to him about, you know, what legislation we 
could look to get passed that would be favorable to the industr5\ 

The farm bill, for example, could we get it passed, how do you get 
it passed. He'll sit down and tell us, you know, what the prospects are. 

I recall that he spoke at the World Dairy Expo meeting of dairy 
farmers at Madison, Wis., on one occasion so that he has, you know, 
over the years supported the dairy industry and been a friend to the 
industry. 

Mr. Sanders. During February and March of 1971, did you have 
any personal contacts with any Senators or Congressmen concerning 
the milk price — support of it ? 

Mr. BuTiT.RBRODT. I belicve I talked to Congressman Kastenmeier, 
Senator Proxmire. and Nelson; I believe I talked to Congi'essman 
Thomson and perhaps one or two other Congressmen. I believe I 
talked to Congressman Obey, and there might have been a few others 
from Wisconsin that I talked to at that time. 

INIr. Sanders. Did these Congressmen and Senators take any affirma- 
tive actions in response to your contacts ? 

Mr. BiTTERBRODT. I belie ve in most cases they were already on record 
as supporting the bill to increase the amount that the price support 
should be set at. 

Mr. Sanders. What purpose did your contact serve ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I really called on them to, vou know, find out if 
they would or if they had supported, if they had talked to other Con- 
gressmen or Senators about supporting it and, you know, what we 
should do to try to get such a bill passed. And who we ought to talk 
to, advice perhaps. 

Mr. Sanders. Between 1968 and 1972, did you learn of any deci- 
sion on the part of the AMPI management to support one or more 
Democratic candidates for the Presidency? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Between when? 

Mr. Sanders. 1968 and 1972. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't bclieve so, no. Candidates for President, 
you say ? 

Mr. Sanders. Democratic candidates for the Presidency. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you ever learn that it was a determination of the 
top management to give Senator Muskie as much support as possible? 
Mr, BuTTERBRODT. lu 1968 ? 

Mr. Sanders. No, no. I'm talking about between 1968 and 1972, 
sometime in 1969. 1970 and 1971 ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. I dou't recall anything about Muskie. 

Mr. Sanders. Or Senator Humphrey? 

INIr. BuTTERBRODT. There was no — you Icnow, to my knowledge, there 
was none, no. 



7663 

Mr, Sanders. Did you, at any time, become aware of any AMPI 
board authority, express authority, for the use of AMPI corporate 
funds for political candiates ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Givc me that again ? 

Mr. Sanders. Did you ever learn of any AMPI board authoriza- 
tion for the use of AMPI corporate funds to be given to political 
candidates for their benefit? 

]Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Sanders. There was never any formal action taken by the board 
to endorse the use of corporate funds for such purposes ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No, not that I'm aware of. 

Mr. Sanders. Would you say that there was also never any implicit 
authority of the board, that is the board never took any action, which 
would implicitly authorize the management to use corporate funds for 
political candidates ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Sanders. So that any expenditures by any officials of AMPI 
of corporate funds, for the benefit of the political candidates, would 
be totally unauthorized by the board ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. That's right. 

]Mr. Sanders. Aside from the recent request of Mr. Heininger to 
Mr. Parkinson, are you aAvare of any demands for reimbursement of 
any other political contributions? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No, I don't think so. 

Mr. Sanders. Has the board instructed its attorneys or management 
to seek reimbursement of any other 

]Mr. Butterbrodt. The board appointed a committee at the last 
board meeting after receiving the Ed Wright report — a committee 
of four people, one of Avhich I serve, to talk to our inhouse counsel 
and legal firms, that are presently employed by AMPI, to recommend 
to the corporate board at the next meeting as to possibilities, feasi- 
bilities of recovery of funds. 

]\[i'. Sanders. Until you read the T.'right report, were you aware of 
AMPI corporate payments to Valentine, Sherman? 

Mt-. Bi'tterbrodt. I believe the name Valentine, Sherman showed 
up on our financial statement, but I was not aware of what they were 
for, wliore they were going, until I saw the Ed Wright report. 

]Mr. Sanders. Until reading the Wright report, you had no knowl- 
edge that any payments to Valentine, Sherman were for the use or 
benefit of the Presidential campaign of Senator Humphrey? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Green. I don't know that that characterization is absolutely 
con-ect as to what benefit — I think it's academic. 

]Mr. Weitz. That's the ([uestion. If it's inaccurate and the witness 
knows nothing about it — I mean says he doesn't know anything about 
that question, then the record is complete, I think. 

I'm not saying I dispute the characterization. 

Mr. Sanders. According to the Wright report, in October of 1971 
there was a cooperative rally in Ames, Iowa, and the report goes on 
to explain that AMPI, with corporate funds, paid much of the ex- 
pense of that event and that Congressman Mills addressed a rally 
there. Were you present at that event? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No, sir. 



7664 

J^Ir. Sanders. Did you know in advance of the event to be held? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Ybs, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. Was it discussed at a board meeting? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. How did you learn of it ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I learned by phone call and I'm not sure just 
where the first call — I believe Kieffer Howard — I guess if I backed 
up I'd say I was attending a meeting when one of the executive board 
members asked me what the executive board was being called to a 
meeting for, and I said I was unaware that a meeting was called. And 
thev indicated that they were told to be at a meeting, and I said I 
dicfn't know anything about it or what it was for. And then through 
subsequent phone calls, Kieffer Howard called and indicated that 
he had instructions or wanted to get the executive board of AMPI 
together, and I told him I didn't see why or for what, you know, 
purpose. And he indicated that they were talking about having a 
rally in Iowa that would be bigger than what our annual meeting 
was. And the purpose of the meeting was to expound on the cheap- 
food policy that the administration was on. And knowing that we 
were having financial problems and costs were excessive, I indicated 
that I didn't think we should have — get involved in that kind of a 
rally. 

And consequently, Dave Parr called me and indicated that we 
should have, you know, a rally in Iowa of farmers, not only dairy 
farmers but all farmers, to expound on the cheap food policy. 

Again, I objected to any conference or meeting of that kind or 
magnitude. And we got into a very heated telephone conversation 
over it, to the point that I told Dave I w^ould not call, you know, a 
meeting of the executive board. In fact, we were supposed to meet 
here in Washington to invite Consrressman Mills to speak at that rally, 
one of the speakers, and meet with the Iowa co-op people about set- 
ting this rally up. 

And again, I objected to the meeting and I told him that I would 
not call the executive board together until I talked to Harold Nelson, 
which, in those days, if I talked to Harold once a month — between 
board meetings is all I've ever talked to Harold. I didn't hear from 
Harold Nelson and Ave were scheduled to leave for Washington like 
on — I don't know what date, but let's assume it was a Thursday, that 
the executive board was to go out on Thursday to have a meeting the 
following day with Congressman Mills. And I of course indicated 
to some of the executive board members that I wasn't going to call 
the meeting and they weren't to go. 

So on the morning of this particular day they called me from 
Minnesota and said, "Look, if we're going out there I have to leave 
by noon in orcler to f^et out to Washington tonight, if we're going to 
have the meetincr tomorrow." And so I called one of the girls who 
takes care of settinir up meetings and so forth, and told her to notify 
the executive board that I was going to have the meeting in Chicago 
that night. And so she called some of the various board members 
and as soon as she called Dwight Morris, Dwight got Dave Parr, 
and they're very close friends, and indicated that I was calling the 
executive board into Chicago that night. And within an hour or two 



7665 

Harold Xelson did call me and indicated why I called the meeting 
in Chicago and I said I was going to have a Chicago meeting to de- 
cide whethei' we were going to go to Washington. 

And we did have the executive board meeting in Chicago that night 
at which time Harold and Dave, after first meeting with me, explained 
to the executive board, and I agree^d in our meeting Avith them, I believe 
it's strictly up to the executive board if they voted in favor of going to 
Washington and asking INIills to apeak, and so on, why, I'd go along 
with it. 

And so they explained to the executive board the reason for me hav- 
ing a meeting in Iowa on the cheap food policy and the board voted 
in favor of it. They indicated it would be a small gathering. And they 
came out here and we met with the Iowa co-op people, Mid-Am, DI, 
Dairymen Inc., were represented here in "Washington. We did meet 
with Chairman ISIills. The invitation Avas extended to him to be the 
principal speiaker with the understanding that it would be nonpartisan. 
Republican and Democrats alike would be there. And the primary 
intent given to the board people was that we had to expound on the 
cheap-food policy of the present administration and get that story 
told to the consumers. 

And that was the reason or philosophy used to sell it to the A-^rious 
board members. And they 'went ahead and had the rally. I was opposed 
to it from the start. I always had been opposed to it. But in my posi- 
tion, if the board or executive board votes for a xerogram, I go along 
with it and put it on, or do not put obstacles in the road. 

INIr. Sanders. Were you opposed to it solely on the basis of the cost 
toAMPI? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Ycs ; we had just come off an annual meeting of 
40,000 people in September. This was — I don't know if I've got my 
dates right — 1971. What year was the rally ? 

j\Ir. Sanders. October 1971. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. It was a cost factor. 

Mr. Sanders. Have you noticed in the Wright report the mention 
that Congressman Mills called Mr. Pepper in Iowa and offered to speak 
at the rally ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I douit recall that from reading the Ed Wright 
report. 

Mr. Sanders. It's so stated in the Wright report and I'm just won- 
dering if you knew of that at the time ? 

Mr. Bitterbrodt. No, I didn't. I thought we came to Washington — 
as least we presented a formal request. We met here in Washington, 
kind of a group, there was the Iowa co-op, INIid-America, DI, our- 
selves. It was a joint venture, not any one group, and again the theme 
Avas the cheap- food policy. 

Mr. Sanders. But your executive meeting was after the annual 
meeting ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Ycs ; I'm sure it was. It was the night before — yes, 
I'm sure it was. I think it was. 

Mr. Sanders. Was it at or about the same time ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. It could have been a month later — it would have 
had to have been shortly after our annual meeting. 

Mr. Sanders. Shortly after the annual meeting? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. It would have had to have been. 



7666 

Mr. Sanders. Did you ever discern that Parr's motive in wanting to 
hold the event in Ames was to advance the Presidential candidacy of 
Congressman Mills? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I don't know if that was really his idterior motive. 
While it mig'ht have been a part of liis motive, I>ave was also inter- 
ested — and I say this with a dislike for Dave Parr — Dave also had a. 
.you know, motive for betterment of the dairy farmer as well as all 
farmers. And Dave was very energetic and spent a great deal of time 
and effort for the good of fanners. 

And so, even in my dislike for Dave Pairr today, as it was then, we 
were never what I would say, good friends — I hold Dave very high 
in his efforts to improve the farmer, dairy farmer and other farmers' 
situations and income. 

Mr. Sanders. After the Ames rally, was it reported to you that it 
had served its intended purpose ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I don't believe so. I don't know if, for the record. 
it^s known that Wilbur ]Mills left the Ames, Iowa meeting and came 
up to Madison, Wis., where the World Dairy Expo was in session, and 
he spoke at that conference. I was in attendance at that conference. 

And so he spoke at both of them that particular day. both interests 
being farmers. But I don't believe anybody said, you know, any real 
intent. 

There was a further movement to try and hold more sessions like 
that, not with Chairman INIills as the speaker, but rallies of producers. 
Again, I objected on the grounds of financial costs, the burden to the 
organization. 

Mr. Sanders. One might reasonably, I think, conclude from the 
Wright report that it states or infers that the purpose of the Ames 
rally was to enhance the Presidential candidacy of Congressman Mills. 
Did you ever assess it in that way ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't bclievc so, no. It was a nonpar'tisan meet- 
ing. I believe there were Republican Senators there, too. And while 
there was no question. I suppose anytime you have a conference or 
rally, somebody could benefit personally from it. But that, I don't 
believe was ever, you know, put out as the reason or means. That isn't 
why they had the session or proposed the session. 

Mr. Sanders. Prior to the issuance — or the board's receipt of the 
Wright report, had you ever heard of the firm of Lennen and Newell 
in New York? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, I dou't recall, even since the Ed Wright 
report. 

Mr. Sanders. It's in there. 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I'vc Only read the Ed Wright report once, anc 
that's when we went throug'h it at the board meeting. I have not har 
a chance to go back tlirough it to digest what's in it. But the name 
does not ring a bell even now. 

Mr. Sanders. Aside from the name of the firm, were you ever, prior 
to the issuance of the report, aAvare that AMPI had delivered funds 
to a New York advertising agency for the benefit of an account of the 
Humphrey campaign with that finn ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Befoie the board's i-ecoipt of the Wright leport, had 
you known of a firm in Memphis named AYalker Associates? 
Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. 



7667 
Mr. Sanders. Or Deloss Walker i 

Mr. BUTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. And similarly, had you known of a Mr. Warren Bass 
in Little Rock? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. Had you known before the issuance of the report, that 
Joe Johnson, while still on the AMPI payroll, worked for the Presi- 
dential campaio;n of Congressman INIills? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sandees. Did you know that Betty Clements did so? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Or Teri*y Shea ? 

Mr. BuTTERBfRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. What is it you know about Joe Johnson's activity in 
behalf of Congressman Mills ? 

Mr. BtiTTERBKODT. Joc Johusou was one of the few employees of 
AMPI at the time we changed management in January 1972, that 
called and asked to have an appointment with Dr. Mehren and myself. 
He came in one afternoon and indicated to us that he was basically a 
front man, tliat he was spending virtually all his time as an employee 
on the campaign activities of Chairman Mills. He indicated in that 
capacity he had expenses in travel, expenses in setting up meetings, 
holding meetings, that he covered on liis expense accomit. 

He indicated that he had apartments here in Washington that were 
leased by him, that he put on his expense account and was reimbursed 
by AMPI. 

Dr. Mehren asked him — questioned somewhat to the effect, "Jo©, do 
you know that this is illegal, to be doing it — involved in this kind 
of activity?" 

His answer was somewhat to the effect, "Yes, that's exactly Avhy 
I came in and asked to talk to you and John, because you've publicly 
declared you're going to run a clean ship, an aboveboard type of opera- 
tion, and I do not want to go to the end of the month and find that 
I have commitments on my expense account that you will not honor." 

We did not go into detail as in the Ed Wright repoit, you know, 
other employees that he knew about or was covering for, but indicateid 
to him that he'd have to take a vacation starting the next day, take a 
week's vacation, at which time he'd have to make up his mind whether 
he wanted to go to work for AMPI on legitimate business, or whether 
he wanted to remain with the Mills campaign. He'd have to eiither take 
a 6-months leave of absence or work out some other arrangement, leave. 
AMPI to go to work for Mills on a full-time basis. 

I recall — remember very vividly that just before the meeting broke 
up, Joe turned to me and said, "John, my expense accounts are quite 
sizable because of the apartments and other travel relations, and will 
you honor — what about my expenses to this point ?" 

And again — of course, I put this in the same category Avith Stu Rus- 
sell, it was a commitment by former management telling him this is 
how^ they operated, this is what they did. I said, "Joe, we will honor 
your expense account, what you have to this point. I will not have an 
employee get caught with expenses that someone else committed you to. 
And so we wnll honor your expense account this month, but there wall 
be no more of it." 



7668 

Again, we related this to Mr. Grossman, what we knew of the Joe 
Johnson activities and asked the question, "Do we have an obligation 
to report — investigate further, et cetera." And our advice again was 
that it was not our obligation to investigate or report what we had, but 
to inin a clean ship and make sure that it didn't happen again. 

And so, while there was a great deal of concern about the Stu 
Russell matter, I put the Joe Johnson action in the same category and 
said it was a commitment of former management. We were not aware 
of it until after we changed management and after we found out about 
it, we cut it out and there was no more of that. But we did honor those 
commitments made by former managements, even if there was a ques- 
tion of legality. 

Mr. Sanders. Did Johnson give you an understanding of the period 
of time for which he had been working for Congi-essman INfills? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. I clou't recall that he did. At that particular 
time, as I recall, he was basically full time for ^lills. I don't know if 
he had other activities — you know, AISIPI activities or not. 

Mr. Saxders. In your terminology, he said he was a front man. Is 
that a word that he used or is this an interpretation ? 

Mr. BuTTERBROET. That's my word. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you mean advance man ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. He, as I understood — and asrain, we did not go 
into detail as to exactly what he was doing other than he was spending 
his time for Mills' campaign, but I viewed it as the type of indi\ndnal 
that went out and set up meetings, arranged to have a place for the 
Congressman to speak, get a room, talk to the party, in that area, 
et cetera. 

Mr. Sanders. Did he sav who at AMPI had authorized him to do 
this? 

Mr. Btttterbrodt. Again, I couldn't be sure today. At that point 
I would have assumed it was Harold Xelson. Now whether he indi- 
cated that or whether it was — ^it's a strong feeling that it would have 
to be Harold Nelson, because Harold Nelson was the .q:eneral manager. 

Mr. Sanders. Was Joe Johnson responsible directly to Nelson? He 
was the north Texas division manager, was he not. at that time? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I don't know what his real title — position was — 
but in fact, all employees report and are obligated directly to the gen- 
eral manager. They may report to someone else. But their obligation 
is really to the general manager. 

Mr. Sanders. At that point in time, to your knowledge, did Dave 
Parr have any control over responsibilities to be performed by John- 
son? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. He could have, but again, I am not sure under 
Harold Nelson or who had control OA-er who or reported to who. 

Mr. SvNDERS. Did Johnson give you any understanding as to 
whether any ofRcialfs in the Mills campaign were aware of AMPI's 
payments of tlie salaries and expenses? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. I don't know if Joe Johnson, you know, told us 
who was tiware or what. I really dont know other than I do know 
he eventually — I believe, and t he record should show — ^but to my knowl- 
edge he took a 6-months leav^^ of absence from AlSiPI, and then did 
not renew it, but went full time to work for Chairman Mills. 



7669 

Mr. Green. Can I inquire off the record how long you fellows are 
goin^ to go ? 

[Discussion off the record.] 

iVIr. Sanders. When you were given this explanation by Joe John- 
son. 3'ou were with Dr. Mehren ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Ycs, sir. 

Mr, Sanders, Was this in the AMPI offices ? 

Mr, Butterbrodt, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. And it was veiy soon after Dr. Mehren became general 
manager ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. Were you ever given a report as to the total amount — 
the total cost of Johnson's expenses and salaries? 

Mr. Butterbrodt, Xo, sir. Not until the Ed Wright report, 

Mr. Sanders, In 1970, Bob Lilly made two deliveries of funds to 
the Humphrey campaign. One was a $10,000 check and one later in the 
year was $12,500 cash, which went to Jack Chestnut, his campaign 
manager. Were you contemporaneously aware of either of those cam- 
paign contributions ? 

Mr, Butterbrodt. No. sir. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you thereafter learn of them before the issuance 
of the Wright report ? 

IVIr. Butterbrodt. No, sir, 

Mr, Sanders. In the Wright report there is mention of, in Novem- 
ber of 1968, a $31,000 check cashed by Joe Nigrelle for Harold Nelson, 
Were you contemporaneously aware of that transaction ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you, even to this day, know what happened to 
those funds? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. Have you asked for any investigation of that? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No, sir. Our committee has only met once and 
we have not got into it. 

Mr. Sanders. In 1971. according to Lilly, he delivered $5,000 to 
Norma Kirk in Little Rock, which money then went to Parr for the 
Mills campaign, and this money Avas generated by a loan Lilly made 
and was repaid by means of moneys received from conduit attorneys. 
Were you contemporaneously aware of that? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. sir. 

Mr. Sanders, When did you first learn of it? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. Is it in the Ed Wright report? 

Mr. Sanders, Yes, 

Mr, Butterbrodt, I'm not familiar with it even now. That would 
be the first I'd know about it. I'm not aware of it right now even, 

Mr, Sanders, Other than payments from TAPE or CTAPE, have 
you ever authorized any funds to be given to the 1972 Presidential 
campaign of Senator Humphrey? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Or to Congressman Mills? 

Mr. Butterbrodt, No. 

Mr. Sanders. Or to Senator Muskie ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. No. 



7670 

Mt. Sanders. Have you approved any such contributions after the 
fact? 

Mr. BUTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Or do you have knowledge of any to those three men 
or to their campaigns, rather, aside from any that you've read in the 
Wright report or what I have mentioned to you today ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. In October of 1972, contributions were made to the 
Democratic House and Senate campaign committees as well as to the 
Republican committees. Do >ou recall — excuse me. You've already tes- 
tified that there was a meeting in early October where it was decided 
that there would be a balancing of contributions. Was that for the 
year, did you say, or for what period of time ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. For the year. TAPE operates on a calendar year, 
the idea being that because after election there would be very few 
contributions and the idea being that we would balance at the time 
or before the election period, so that it would balance at the end of 
December. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have any recollection of any discussion at 
the committee meeting in October for the earmarking of any funds to 
be given to the Democratic House and Senate committees? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. To your knowledge, was there any earmarking? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Not that I recall, and yet I believe, in the con- 
versation this last weekend, Dr. Mehren mentioned that there was 
a $2,500 earmark, or they talk about $2,500 going to somebody, but 
I don't recall who or why. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you recall any discussion in the committee meet- 
ing of control to be exercised over the disposition of those funds by 
any Congressmen or Senators, other than those who operated the 
committees ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I belicve Mel Besemer indicated something about 
that money going to the Democratic committees, that someone ought 
to talk to Humphrey or Mills about having them talk to the com- 
mittee about where it could be best used or how it could be best used 

Mr. Sanders. Was any action taken on that suggestion? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I really don't know. 

Mr. Sanders. Was Lilly present at that meeting? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I bclieve so. The records should show. That was 
a TAPE committee meeting and I believe he would have been there, 
but I'm not positive. 

Mr. Sanders. ^^Hio would you logically expect to be the one to 
follow through on any suggestions made by members of the com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Bob Lilly. 

Mr. Sanders. During the committee meeting, do you have any recol- 
lection of a discussion that funds given to the Democratic Hoiise and 
Senate committees would pass through for the benefit of either the 
Democratic Xational Committee or the Democratic Presidential 
candidate ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. N'o, I dou't think there was any discussion like 
that. 

Mr._ Sanders. Did you subsequently learn of any passthrough 
intention? 



7671 

Mr. BUTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Or that any passthroiigh occurred ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Was there any discussion at the meeting of any money 
passing through the Republican House or Senate committees for the 
benefit of the Republican National Committee or the reelection of the 
President ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you subsequently learn of any ? 
Mr. Bxjtterbrodt. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Are you personally acquainted with Senator 
Humphrey ? 
Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Ycs. 
Mr. Sanders. Are you personally acquainted with Jack Chestnut ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Have you ever met him ? 
Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't bclievc so. 
Mr. Sanders. Have you ever talked with him ? 
Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't believe so. 

Mr. Sanders. Have you ever visited at Senator Humphrey's home 
in Waverly ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Or at the — what is it — Macalester College when he 
was in residence there ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Were you ever informed by Mehren or Nelson or Parr 
that they had visited at any of Senator Humphrey's homes? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Did Senator Humphrey, during the Presidential cam- 
paign, make any solicitation of you for a contribution from TAPE or 
CTAPE ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Or any of his Presidential officials ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Were you advised by anyone else in the AMPI orga- 
nization that the Humphrey campaign had made any solicitation? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I'm sure, again, that Mel Besemer from Minne- 
sota, at various times, you know, asked for funds or has brought up 
the subject of money for Humphrey, and I'm aware that the com- 
mittee at various occasions — we approved — I as part of the committee 
approved funds for Humphrey. 

Mr. Sanders. With respect to TAPE, was it your understanding — 
let me put it this wav. Who had practical authority to authorize dis- 
bursements from TAPE ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Bob Isham. 

Mr. Sanders. Isham sianed the checks. Do you think that Isham had 
the autliority to make the decisions as to who would be the payee on 
the check? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. That was the impression given to the board at 
various times on the questioning that TAPE was a trust, there was 
onlv one trustee. Bob Isham had tlie final decision as to who got money 
and wlio didn't get money, or wlio he wrote the checks to, but that 
Harold Nelson and Dave Parr, if they made recommendations, he 
would honor them or pay those. 



7672 

There's no question Bob Isham worked for Harold Nelson, and so 
any time Harold Nelson went and asked for a check, he would have 
issued it. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you conceive that anyone besides Nelson or 
Parr — let me put it this way : That Isham would have acceded to a 
reouest for funds from anyone besides Nelson or Parr? 

Mr. BuTTEKBRODT. I believc, yes, if I or any regional president, or 
maybe any corporate board member asked Isham for funds, if Isham 
thought it was, say, a good cause or proper, he Avould have wrote the 
check. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you think he would not have checked with Harold 
Nelson ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't bcUeve so, no. 
Mr. Sanders. Regardless of the amount ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. There was a limit on amounts. I don't think 

Mr, Sanders. What was the limit ? 

Mr. Butterbrodt. $5,000. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you mean for a sum in excess of $5,000, he would 

have checked with Nelson? There could be no expenditure 

Mr. BuTi'ERBRODT. As I Understand the law, there could be no 
expenditure over $5,000 to any one candidate. 

Mr. Sanders. That is unless it's broken down into various committees. 
Mr. Green. Are you asking for a legal conclusion or what? 
Mr. Sanders. No, I'm asking for his understanding. 
Mr. Butterbrodt. jNIy understanding was $5,000 to any one candi- 
date, period. 

Mr. Sanders. Thank you. 
I have no further questions. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Butterbrodt, in the Wright report that we referred 
to a number of times today, 021 page 152, there is a recitation, a sum- 
mary of an interview between Mr. Wright's firm and yourself with 
respect to the Dwight Morris conversation, and the last paragraph 
on page 152 begins with the following sentence: "Mr. Butterbrodt said 
he recalled the visit with Mr. Morris and acknowledged that there was 
no doubt a discussion of possible milk contributions for Republican 
causes as being 'hot' in view of the publicity that had broken on the 
ITT contributions." 

And it goes on to say that you denied having ever traveled to Cali- 
fornia or Washington and met with Mr. Kalmbach. 

With respect to the sentence I just read, Avould you tell us whether 
that's a fair sunnnary of what you told Mr. Wright's firm ? 

Mr. Buttterbrodt. No. In regard to the Ed Wright rei:)ort on that 
issue, you would have to understand that I called Ed Wright at his 
home on a Sunday afternoon and, after a conference on other issues, 
Mr. Wright said to me. "John, this will perhaps save me a phone call 
tomorrow to you," And he said, he indicated that one of his partners, 
Gus Walton, had talked to Dwight ]Morris. 

Mr. Wright indicated to me that he did not have Dwight Morris' 
statement or the facts of what he said in front of him at the time. And 
he said, "I can only go from memory, from what I know about the 
Dwight Morris statement." 

And he indicated to me that Dwight had indicated I was to 
Washington and that I had been to California. And then he indicated 
that, he asked if it were possible that I talked to Dwight ]Morris about 
contributions. 



7673 

And my answer to him was, "Yes, it was possible I might have talked 
to him. I don't recall that I did." 

And because he did not have Dwight ]\Iorris' statement there, or 
I did not know what he really had said or charged, my answer to him, 
kind of in a laughing way, is, I don't know how he can say that, 
because I wasn't to Washington and I wasn't to California. I've never 
met Kalmbach. So how could somebody be saying I was there, that 
I met with these people and dealt with them, and then talk about a 
fixed contribution or amount. 

And so the answer there is partially two reasons. One, Mr. Wright 
did not tell me the exact substance of what Dwight was saying. He was 
operating from memory at his home on Sunday afternoon. I didn't 
know exactly what the charge was that I was i-eally answering him at 
the time. But to my recollection, I did not talk to Dwight Morris about 
contributions, those issues. 

Mr. Weitz. You're saying that Mr. AYria:ht's. or his firm's summary 
of their conversation with you to the extent that you, according to 
them, acknowledged that there was no doubt a discussion of milk 
contributions for Republican causes, and they were "hot" in view of 
the ITT publicity, you're saying that some or all of that is incorrect ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. I'm saying that part of it 

Mr. Weitz. I'm just asking about that part. As I indicated, they do 
go on to say that you clearly denied meeting with Kalmbach or travel- 
ing to California. 

]\Ir. BuTTERBRODT. I dou't belicve that's quite correct. He apparently 
asked me about, you know, the contributions, did I talk to Dwight 
JNIorris about it, and my answer was, again, that I possibly could have 
talked to him, I possibly could have said that, but I don't recall. 

Mr. Weitz. So, in other words, the statement that there was no doubt 
a discussion of possible milk contributions for Republican causes was 
discussed, that would be inaccurate? 

Mr, BuTTERBRODT. Right. 

Mr. Weitz. Aiid could you explain why in their summarv — in their 
report they say that you explained that there was no doubt a discus- 
sion of such contributions as being "hot" in view of the ITT publicity ? 
Could you explain that ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. Again, Ed Wright was working from memory 
and as he recalled over the phone, he mentioned that Dwight indi- 
cated something to the effect that we had discussed the contributions 
and the fact that they were "hot'' because of ITT. Those are kind of 
his words to me over the phone. 

And I indicated to him it's possible, but I don't recall talking to 
Dwight Morris about it, that issue or those issues in that context. 

Mr. Weitz. But it is possible? I mean, that's your testimony today 
also ? 

Mr. BuTTERBRODT. That's right. It's possible, but I don't recall talk- 
ing; to Dwigfht Aforris about it at all. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Sandere ? 

Mr. Sanders. No, thank you. 

Mr. Weitz. I have no further questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Butterbrodt. 

[Whereupon, at 6 :?>5 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
was adjourned.] 



30-337 O - 74 - Dt. 17 



WASHINGTON. 
?O2-709 



7674 



BUTTERBRODT EXHIBIT NO. 1 

MA^T.R.IIROWN 8: IM.ATT 

231 SOUTH LA SALLE STREET 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6060A 

312 - Tea - 0600 

TCLCX 2S37eO 

CAPLC LCMAY 

January 21, 197^ 



Kenneth Parkinson, Esq. 
1828 L Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

Dear Mr. Parkinson: 

This confirms our telephone conversation of January 
15j IST'^^- with respect to a political contribution in the 
amount of $100,000 to the Coniraittee to Re-Elect the 
President, your client, from the corporate funds of our 
client. Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (AMPI). You reported 
that the Coramittee does not recognize any legal obligation 
to return corporate fiinds or other illegal contributions, 
but that it has taken the ethical position that it does not 
wish to retain any contributions made in violation of law. 
We do not intend to argue the merits of the Committee's 
legal, obligation at this time. However, we do appreciate 
the good faith expressed by the Committee in its polity 
of returning contributions which originated from illegal 
sources. We also understand from you that Committee con- - 
sideration for refunds is based on the facts of each case. 

AMPI is a milk marketing cooperative incorporated under 
the laws of Kansas, wi^h approximately 40,000 dairy farmer- 
members located in l4 states in the midwest from Minnesota 
through Texas. In early I969 the Trust for Agricultural 
Political Education (TAPE) was established to permit farmer- 
members of AiAPl to make contributions for political purposes 
as permitted under I8 U.S.C.A. § 6IO. TAPE in 1971 did make 
substantial lawful contributions to a number of committees 
which may have found their way to the Committee to Re-Elect 
and we have no problem with what appear to be lawful contri- 
butions. However, there is at least one exception, a 



7675 



contribution in the amount of $5,000 given to the People 
United for Good Government. We understand that this money 
ultimately wound up in the heinds of the Ellsberg burglars, 
but we have no information at this time which links this 
in any way to the Committee to Re-Elect, 

The rather complicated factual recitation which 
follows establishes an unlawful contribution from AMPI 
funds and, accordingly, we would like the Committee to re- 
turn the $100,000 to AMPI on a voluntary basis. 

On August 1, 1969 Mr. Bob A. LilJ-y, an employee of 
AWPI, obtained $100,000 in cash from the Citizens National 
Bank in Austin, Texas. Mr. JaJte Jacobsen, active in Democrats 
for Nixon, was the dominant figure in that bank. Mr. Lilly 
delivered the $100,000 to Mr, Milton Semer, a law partner 
of Mr. Jacobsen, at the Dallas airport. Mr. Semer in turn 
delivered the $100,000 to Mr. Herbert W. Kalmbach in Los 
Angeles. According to the recent White House White Paper 
press release of January 8, 197^: 

"In August of 1969, an attorney for AMPI delivered 
to Mr. Herbert Kalmbach the sum of $100,000. Mr. 
Kalmbach deposited the funds in a Trustee account 
he maintained at the Security Pacific National Bank 
in Newport Beach, California. The account contained 
political contributions remaining from the 1968 
election campaign." 

From the attached excerpt from'tlie 'Watergate Senate 
investigation, pp. 1229 and 1230, it appears that these funds, 
including the $100,000 delivered to Mr. Kalmbach, ultimately 
found their way to the Committee to Re-Elect the President. 
Notice the reference to paying expenses of 1701. You should 
be able to readily determine this from Committee to Re-Elect 
records or Mr. Kalmbach. 

The original $100,000 was charged to a TAPE bank 
account. It appears that Vjr . Robert 0. Isham, the former 
Controller of AMPI, became aware of the requirements of the 



Note. --The above referred-to excerpt has been previously printed in 
Book 3 as Exhibit 34-26 and is not reprinted herewith. 



7676 



then existing l8 U.S.C.A. § 6o8 which limited contributions 
to $5,000 and if $100,000 were to be reported, it would be 
a clear violation of the statute. However, the money had 
already been delivered. 

Harold S. Nelson, the former General Manager and Mr. 
Isham, the former Controller of AMPI, implemented a plan to 
pay back the $100,000 out of corporate funds in an attempt 
to avoid the problem. The first step was to have Mr. Lilly 
borrow xinder his own name $100,000 from the Citirens National 
Bank, which he did on December 17, I969. , The proceeds were 
used to replace the $100,000 taken f rom^' TAPE funds which had 
been given to Mr. Kalmbach in August of 1969. Lawyers and 
public relation consultants retained by AMPI were asked to 
remit amounts to Mr. Lilly and these amounts were used by 
Mr. Lilly to repay the December 17, I969 loam to the Citizens 
National Bank. Arrangements were made to increase the fees 
that were billed to AMPI to cover funds which were transmitted 
to Mr. Lilly. In addition, AMPI made commitments and addi- 
tional amounts were paid to take care of the income tajc 
consequences of the added income to at least one of the 
attorneys involved. By the end of I97I the $100,000 Lilly 
loan had been repaid and what started out to be a TAPE contri- 
bution was converted to a contribution out of corporate funds. 

This has been rather fully explored in the depositions 
of Mr. Stuart H. Russell, one of the attorneys, which was 
taken in United States v. AMPI and related cases, and Mr. 
Jacobsen, whose deposition was taken in Nader v. Butz . Mr. 
Lilly and Mr. Isham have been granted immunity by both the 
Watergate Grand Jury and the Senate Committee and also will ' 
confirm the facts set forth above. Mr. Nelson was replaced 
as General Manager of AMPI as of January 12, 1972. The new 
General Manager, Dr. George L. Mehren, was not involved in 
these transactions, nor was the Board of AMPI informed of 
them. 

If you require more information, let us know. Needless 
to say, both the Committee to Re -Elect and AMPI have sufficient 



7677 



litigation and other problems in these troubled times without 
adding another one. I hope the Committee will find its way- 
clear to refiind the $100,003 quickly. Please let me know when 
we may expect an answer to our request. 

Sincerely yours, 

E. C. Heininger / 

/• 

ECH/dt 
Enclosure 



Ralph E. Hartraan, Esq. 
Edward L. V7right, Esq. 
Dr. George L. Mehren 
Alan Weitz, Esq. 
Jon Sale, Esq. 
Don Graham, Esq. 
Edward C. Rustigan, Esq, 
Robert Uvick, Esq. 
Mr. John Butterbrodt 



TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee ox 
presroextial campaign activities, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :20 a.m., in room 
G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building. 

Present : Senator Inouye. 

Also present : Alan S. Weitz and W. Dennis Summers, assistant ma- 
jority counsels; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority counsel; and 
Gordon Freedman, research assistant. 

Senator Inouye. Raise your right hand. 

Do you SAvear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Harrison, I do. 

Senator Inouye. Give your name and address. 

Mr. Harrison. INIarion Edwyn Harrison, 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW., Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Summers. Before I begin to question you, I would like to state 
from the outset that Mr. Harrison is appearing before the committee 
under a committee subpena, wliich is an ongoing subpena. 

Mr. Harrison, when you were testifying before the committee in 
your first appearance, you stated that your law firm was retained by 
Associated Milk Producers for a period of time running between 
January 1, 1972, and June 30, 1972. Is that substantially correct? 

TESTIMONY OF MARION E. HARRISON 

Mr. Harrison. January 1, 1970, to June 30, 1972—21/2 years. 

Mr. Summers. I see. And your firm was on a retainer of $3,000 per 
montli, is that correct ? 

]Mr. Harrison. The last time I was here, I presented the actual state- 
ments we sent out which state the amounts we billed and the amounts 
we were paid. I can't call to mind the precise figures Avithout looking 
at those statements. 

Mr. Summers. But the retainer arrangement was $3,000 per month 
with additional billings according to the work that was done, is that 
right? 

]Mr. Harrison. Not exactly ; $3,000 was not the exact figure. If you 
have those bills^ — it's an odd figure. It's close to it, but that's not the 
precise figure. 

Mr. Summers. But you were on retainer. That's the point. Your 
firm wfis on retainer, though ? 

Mr. Harrison. Yes, sir. 

(7679) 



7680 

Mr. Summers. Woiild you please explain to us the nature of your 
law firm's representation of Associated Milk Producers ? 

Mr. Harrison. Washington counsel for Associated Milk Producers, 
Inc. 

ISIr. Summers. "\^Tiat Avas the nature of the legal work that you per- 
formed for the cooperative ? 

INIr. Harrison. Professional advice involving any area of the law 
on which we were asked for advice. 

Mr. Summers. In what areas were you asked for advice? 

Mr. Harrison. A large spectrum of the probleins affecting the 
dairy co-ops, including but not limited to, import and export matters 
before the Agriculture Department and the Tariff Commission and the 
White House, parity matters, legislation short of actually lobbying for 
anything; to some extent problems involving Federal milk marketing 
ordei-s; to a limited quantitative extent, mattei-s involving the legal 
limitations upon TAPE, which was the — speaking somewhat loosely — 
a political trust fund controlled by A!MPI. 

Mr. Summers. Any other matters ? 

Mr. Harrison. There probably were some others but I would think 
that most of them would come within the scope of the broad categories 
I just enumerated. 

Mj-. Summers. Did you represent AMPI on any matters relating to 
antitrust suits by either civil or government — either civil or govern- 
ment suits ? 

Mr. Harrison. Not really. On one occasion I was asked to look into 
an antitrust matter which I did. 

Mr. Summers. And what was that matter ? 

Mr. Harrison. A lawsuit was filed early in 1972 by the Justice 
Department against AMPI. That was the matter. 

Mr. Summers, "\\1io asked you to look into that ? 

Mr. Harrison. Stuart Russell. 

Mr. Summers. And what did he ask you to do ? 

Mr. Harrison. He telephoned me on or about the day the lawsuit 
was filed, which was somewhere in the neighborhood of February 1, 
1972, and told me in substance — not necessarily these words — that 
Justice liad filed a lawsuit, specifically a civil antitrust suit, against 
AMPI ; that he had just gotten word of it from the Chicago office of 
the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department ; that he had had no 
advance notice of it; that contrary to the usual modus operandi in- 
volving antitrust suits — which I can tell you from my own experience 
in administrative law involves most suits in Avhich the Government is 
the plaintiff — -there had been no overt investigation of A^IPI and no 
discussions with AMPI counsel, so to speak, it had just come out of the 
blue. And that the Justice Department, contrary to its usual practice, 
was allowing A!MPI a brief period of time, which I think Avas 48 liours 
— at any rate it was a very short period of time — to consent to a pro- 
posed consent decree or the lawsuit would actually be filed, and was not 
allowing A^IPI its own copy of the proposed complaint in the 
lawsuit, but was limiting it to coming to the Chicago office and reading 
the complaint there. 

And as I interpreted Stuart Russell's remarks, he was most alarmed 
at the dramatic and unusual and, as he characterized it to me, un- 
precedented manner in which the lawsuit was filed and his query was 



7681 

to nie — again these are my words now, not necessarily his words — why 
was AMPI being singled out for this type of treatment and what, if 
anythhig, could be done about it ? 

Mr. Summers. Was your conversation with Mr. Russell the first time 
you had learned of the Government antitrust suit against AMPI I 

Mr. Harrison. Yes, and I took it it was the first time he learned — at 
any rate, it was the first time I had. 

Mr. Summers. When was it that he called you ? 

Mr. Harrison. Well it was within a day or two, if not the very same 
day, that AMPI was notified that the proposed complaint was reposing 
in the Chicago office of the Antitrust Division of Justice and that it 
would be filed within the time period that I just mentioned. If some- 
one would look at the date, we could reconstruct. 

Mr. Summers. The suit was in fact filed on February 1, 1972, so using 
that as a frame of reference, what date would you place the phone call 'I 

]Mr. Harrison. Probably the business day before that. 

Mr. Summers. Were you, prior to the time of your conversation with 
Mr. Russell, aware that AMPI was, in fact, being investigated by the 
Antitrust Division of the Justice Department? 

Mr. Harrison. No, I was not. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you ever have occasion to discuss with Mr. Chotiner 
such investigation? 

Mr. Harrison. Before or after the telephone call from Stuart 
Russell? 

Mr. Weitz. Before. 

Mr. Harrison. No. 

Mr. Weitz. What about after ? 

Mr. Harrison. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. And what was the substance of — was there more than 
one conversation, or just one ? 

Mr. Harrison. I would say several, although in a very short period 
of time. 

INIr. Weitz. Are you able to summarize the substance of this con- 
versation ? 

Mr. Harrison. Oh, yes. My reaction to Stuart Russell was that what 
was done was done and I doubted anything could be done about it 
other than possibly some kind of assurance that the future handling of 
the case would be no harsher than tJie future handling of any antitrust 
case. 

Mr. Weitz. Was that your understanding of his request of you, to 
seek such assurance ? 

Mr. Harrison. Oh. more or less. His request was not specific and was 
presented in what I interpreted to be a state of some measure of shock 
and agitation and concern as to why it was his client was being — to 
use my words now which may not have been his words — persecuted 
and not just prosecuted. 

Mr. Summers. AYhat affirmative action did you take to pursue the 
matter after you talked to Mr. Rus^sell ? 

Mr. Harrison. Well, first I thought about it, wondering if I had 
accurately opined to Stuart Russell that probably not much if any- 
thing could be done about it and certainly nothing concerning the 
peremptory nature of the filing of the compla-int. 



7682 

And then I discussed it with Murray Chotiner and inquired of — and 
inquired of him if his view was substantially similar to mine, which it 
was. 

And then I decided that it would be useless to discuss it with the 
then-Attorney General because under the law it's the Attorney Gen- 
eral that signs the complaint in an antitrust case, and apart from a 
particular personality, it's most unlikely that somebody who had 
signed a complaint presumably — although I don't know this as a fact 
and of course didn't know it as a fact then — presumably knowing 
that the complaint is going to be filed suddenly with something like 
48 hours' notice to consent and no more — it's most unlikely that that 
person is going to backtrack. 

I may not have learned much in my years of practicing law inside 
and outside of the Government in Washington, but one thing I've 
learned is that human nature is such that if a Government official or 
employee puts something in writing, most of the time it's unreasonable 
to ask him to undo what he has done. Often in an informal discussion 
prior to the time something is put in writing, sweet reason will prevail 
and one can dissuade somebody from doing something or induce them 
to do it slightly different or with a slightly different time limit. 

At any rate, I probably — I'm a rather candid fellow particularly 
when talking to fellow lawyers and clients — I probably told him that 
at the moment I didn't know what I could do, if ever. And that in 
any event, John Mitchell was going out as Attorney General and Judge 
McLaren, who was Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, 
had gone on the bench from Chicago and had left on or about the very 
day that the lawsuit was filed; so therefore the likelihood of an}) 
reasonable discussion with either of those two was most remote. 

Mr. Summers. I take it then at the time of your conversation witli 
Mr. Russell, it was your understanding that the complaint had in fact 
been signed by Attorney General Mitchell; is that correct? 

Mr. Harrisox. That was my understanding, yes. 

Mr. Summers. As a result of your conversation with INIr. Russell, 
did you contact anyone in the Justice Department to find out the 
status of the lawsuit? 

Mr. Harrisox. Subsequently, yes. 

Mr. Summers. Wlio was it that you contacted ? 

Mr. Harrisox^. Richard G. Kleindienst. 

Mr. Summers. And when did you contact Mr. Kleindienst ? 

Mr. Harrisox. It was not until after he became Attorney General, 
which was sometime thereafter. 

Mr. Summers. And what did you ask him ? 

Mr. Harrison. Well, first I told him the story as I knew it of the 
sudden and peremptory and unusual nature of the filing of this suit. 
And, as he knows, so I didn't have to tell him, our law firm does not 
practice antitrust law. but we do practice many other varieties of ad- 
ministrative law and I said I was quite concerned. And the client's 
counsel who handled their antitrust matters was quite concerned with 
the peremptory and sudden nature or means of the filing of the suit. 
And I thought our client ought to get treatment which was no harsher 
than the treatment that anybody else got. 

And he said that — probably using an expletive or two which is color- 
ful in private conversation— that he didn't know anything about the 



7683 

lawsuit because at the time it came up he was Deputy Attorney Gen- 
eral and antitrust suits for approval <t:o from the Assistant Attorney 
General, Antitrust Division, to rho Attorney General, they don't ffo 
through the Deputy. But, as a broad philosophical proposition, ne 
agreed with me. He said, ""Wliy don't you go talk to Tom Kauper?" 
who by that time had come down from Michigan Law School to be 
Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division — mind you, this was 
months later — so I did. 

Mr. Su]\iMERS. Would you place this conversation after the time that 
Mr. Kleindienst was confirmed ? 

Mr. Harrison. Yes. 

Mr. Summers. Now he was confirmed on June 8, 1972, so would it 
be vour testimony that you discussed the AMPI antitrust suit with him 
after that date? 

Mr. Harrison. Yes. 

Mr. Summers. And was it your understanding at that time that 
Mr, Kauper had assumed the position of Assistant Attorney General, 
Antitrust ? 

Mr. Harrison. He either was in "acting" status, or actually had been 
confirmed. He physically was in the office but all his personal desk 
adornments and whatnot had not been laid out, so he had not been 
there very long. 

Mr. Summers. Is it your testimony, then, Mr. Harrison, that the 
first contact you had with the Justice Department after discussing the 
suit with Mr. Russell was the conversation which you just described 
with Mr. Kleindienst ? 

Mr. Harrison. Yes. Mind you, I w^ould have had it much sooner if 
he had been confirmed much sooner, but as you may recall, his con- 
firmation ran into quite a hassle and was considerably delayed beyond 
what the press earlier was predicting. 

Mr. Summers. Are you aware of any oontax^ts which might have 
been made by Mr. Chotiner with anyone in the Justice Department 
concerning this suit ? 

Mr. Harrison. I'm aware of one. 

Mr, Summers. And when was that ? 

Mr. Harrison. That was very soon after Stuart Russell telephoned 
me. Murray ran into John Mitchell at a cocktail party and I don't 
know whether Murray brought up the subject to John or vice versa. 

I rather assume it must have been Murray who initiated the conver- 
sation, inquiring about the unusual nature of the filing of the suit. 
He got a couple of puffs of John Mitchell's pipe and a rather non- 
committal response which is what I had predicted to Russell in the 
first conversation would happen if anybody discussed it with John 
Mitchell. 

Mr. Summers. What was your understandin<r of what Mr. Chotiner 
had asked Mr. Mitchell or raised with Mr. Mitchell at that cocktail 
partv ? A^Hiat was the subject of th-^ conversation ? 

Mr. Harrison. The subject of th^^ r-onversation was told to — as told 
to me by Murray Cliotiner- -was the sudden and unusual and strange 
and peremptory manner of the filing of this lawsuit. 

Mv. Sum:mers. And what was Mr. Mitchell's response ? 

Mr. Harrison. Vye just described it. 

Mr. Weitz. Do vo i know if there was any reference either by Mr. 
Chotiner or Mr. Mitchell in their conversation to the political sup- 



7684 

port which the dairy cooperatives had previously given or intended to 
provide to the President's reelection campaign ? 

Mr. Harrison. Mr. Chotiner mentioned no such discussion to me. 

Mr. Weitz. In your discussions with Mr. Chotiner either before or 
after his conversation with Mr. Mitchell, did either of you refer to such 
support in relation to the antitrust suit ? 

Mr. Harrisox. I don't quite understand the question. "V\Tio was talk- 
ing with whom now ? 

Mr. Weitz. Between you and Mr. Chotiner, either before or after 
the time he met Mr. Mitchell at the cocktail party ? In the course of 
your discussions with reference to the antitrust suit against AMPI, 
did there enter into your discussion any considerations or any refer- 
ences to the political support or campaign contributions of AMPI or 
its trusts, to the reelection campaign of President Nixon ? 

Mr. Harrison. Well, over a long period of time Mr. Chotiner and I 
had several conversations with one another — is that what you're talk- 
ing about? 

Mr. Weitz. Yes ; in the course of those conversations. 

Mr. Harrison. With one another, during the course of which one or 
the other of us would mention the fact that dairy' cooperatives were 
supporters of the Nixon administration, but whether in a conversation 
during this particular period — which I take it to be February 1972 
you're talking about — whether in one and the same conversation one 
of us was discussing the antitrust suit and contributions, I can't recall 
as a fact. I would doubt it considering both of us were aware of the 
contributions. It's illogical, it seems to me, that one would be stating the 
obvious to the other. 

Mr. Weitz. I'm not talking about restating the fact that contribu- 
tions had been made, but to put another question to you : Was there 
any reference to a possible connection or impact that the antitrust 
suit would have upon additional contributions by AMPI and its 
political trusts to the reelection campaign ? 

Mr. Harrison. Oh, there might have been, in this context. The Nixon 
administration, to generalize somewhat, from the summer or fall of 
1971 up to and including, for that matter, almost to the present date, 
has done very little affirmative for the dairy co-ops, so I suppose Mur- 
ray and I somewhere along the line, talking one to the other, might 
have alluded to the political fact of life that there's a point beyond 
which an administration can't be hostile to a particular industry or 
farm group and expect indefinite support from that same industry or 
fa mi group. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any reference in these conversations between 
you and Mr. Chotiner during that same Deriod, Avith respect to whether 
or not additional contributions, if made by the dairy trusts, would have 
a beneficial impact or influence upon the proceedings of the antitrust 
su^^' 

Mr. Harrison. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware of any such discussions or intentions on 
the part of anvone connected with AMPI or representing AMPI in 
1972? 

Mr. Harrison. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware of any such position taken or suggestion 
made bv Jake Jacobsen ? 

Mr. Harrison. No. 



7685 

Mr. Weitz. Did Dr. Mehren or anyone else connected with AMPI or 
TAPE seek any advice from you or discuss with you possible addi- 
tional contributions to the i-eelection campaign in 1972 ? 

Mr. Harrison. George Mehren might have. I don't recall anybody 
else that did or would have. George Mehren became general manager 
of AMPI in January 1972. He and I had a discussion on all manner of 
subjects in San Antonio soon thereafter, in January 1972. Of course 
that was before I knew anything about the possible antitrust suit and 
I take it it was before he did. I don't recall any discussion after that 
about contributions. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall at that conversation — at that meeting — 
reference to the fact that he was to meet with Mr. Kalmbach several 
days thereafter ? 

Mr. Harrison. No. As a matter of fact, I not only did not k'low about 
that meeting in advance, but it was very long thereafter that I learned 
about it, which I took to be a lack of confidence on his part with regard 
to me, which I guess was accurately taken because I was asked for very 
little advice on any subject after he became general manager and the 
retainer was terminated in May or June, etfective June 30. 

Mr. Summers. Mr. Harrison, I hand you copies of two letters. Would 
you please identify these letters for the record ? 

Mr. Harrison. Yes, these are two letters I wrote; one to George 
Mehren and one to Stuart Russell on the same date and I sent a copy 
of each to the other. 

[The letters referred to above appear in Book 16 as Mehren exhibits 
Nos. 1-C and 1-B, respectively.] 

Mr. Summers. What was the occasion of your writing these two 
letters, Mr. Harrison ? 

IVIr. Harrison. T couldn't reach either one by telephone to continue, 
or conclude as it were, a conversation or conversations that I had had 
with each and I was about to leave to go somewhere — skiing, I believe. 

I think maybe if we check a calendar, February 25, 1972, turns out 
to be a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, so I put in writing what I would 
have said had I been able to reach them by telephone. Otherwise the 
matter, you see, would have gone over for another week or two. 

TDiscussion off the record.] 

Mr. Summers. Mr. Harrison, I refer you to the first letter, dated 
February 25, 1972, to Dr. George Mehren. In the first sentence of that 
letter you state : 

In view of the changing of the guard, apart from Jake's reasoning, I decided, 
with Murray's concurrence, not to talk with the incumbent but to take the matter 
up anew with his successor. 

What did you mean when you said "In view of the changing of the 
guard" ? 

Mr. Harrison. The guard was changing. Judge McLaren had left 
and Jolm Mitchell, if he hadn't left was soon to leave. 

Mr. Si mmers. Were you referring to both those changes ? 

Mr. Harrison. Yes. 

Mr. Summers. What was "Jake's reasonina-" on this matter? 

Mr. Harrison. According to Stuart Russell, his reasoning was, as 
quoted to me in the very first conversation when Stuart Russell called 
me and invited this problem to my attention, he quoted Jake Jacoibsen 



7686 

as having said that nothing could be done about itr— what was done 
was done. His reasoning was the same as mine. 

Mr. Summers. But you are contrasting what you planned to do as 
indicated in this letter, with what Jake's reasoning was. So how can 
you say that yours is concurrent? 

Mr. Harrisox. "Apart from" means "in addition to." 

]Mr. Weitz. Just to clarify, in other words you're saying that Mr. 
Jacobsen's reasoning, as related to you by Mr. Russell, was that noth- 
ing could be done with those, at tliat time, in charge of the Justice 
Department ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Harrisox. Precisely ; and I'm saying that that is my view apart 
from Jake Jacobsen's reasoning. In other words, I'm not relying on 
his reasoning. I'm telling my client that it's my reasoning. 

Mr. Weitz. But you did think it should be taken up with the suc- 
cessor leadership of the Justice Department ? 

Mr. Harrison. Yes. Bear in mind, this is the written conclusion to 
a series of two or three telephone conversations. Consequently I had 
no need to explain or lead into these comments. The addressees could 
have had no doubt what I was referring to. 

Mr. Summers. If you felt nothing could be done about this matter, 
why did you decide to even take it up with the successor, meaning I 
take it, Mr. Kleindienst ? 

Mr. Harrison. I felt that nothing could be done with the present 
guard and that nothing could be done concerning the filing. I hoped 
for fair treatment for the future. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Harrison, in the second paragraph, the sentence 
reads as follows — ^before I quote, there's a reference to Murray talking 
to John at the party, which I think you referred to, and the following 
sentence goes: "The version of the facts I surmised to you by tele- 
phone is confirmed. I guessed 'right'." What version of the facts was 
that? 

Mr. Harrison. The ones to which I have testified— namely, that 
John Mitchell puffed on his pipe and indicated or implied that he 
knew little about it. It was a recommendation from Judge McLaren 
which he signed off on. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Mitchell did relate that to Mr. Chotiner ? 

Mr. Harrison. Yes, and I claim no prowess as a pundit, but that^s 
what I predicted to Stuart Russell, that in the very first conversation 
if anybody discussed it with him he would puff on his pipe and be 
noncommittal and say, "Well, Judge McLaren sent me the complaint 
so I signed it, what they do with it afterwards is a matter for the Anti- 
trust Division," which, of course, it is. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any discussion between vou and Mr. Chotiner 
or between you and anv other lawvers for AMPI concerning the nos- 
sibility that Mr. Mitchell had signed the complaint with the idea 
that the negotiation period would run beyond the time Mr. McLaren 
would be at the Justice Department and would have no further say 
in the a("tual filing r>f the complaint ? 

Mr. Harrison. The answer to vour question is "No." I don't want 
to speculate on Avhat the Attornev General's intentions were. 

Mr. Wettz. I didn't ask you to speculate, I asked you whether you 
discussed that possibility with Mr. Chotiner or any other lawyers for 
AMPI. 



7687 

Mr. Harrison. No ; I don't recall discussing that possibility. I sup- 
pose it is one. 

Mr. Summers. In the third paragraph of this same letter, you state, 
"The confirmation vote will be no earlier than February 29 and prob- 
ably later next week." Wliose confirmation are you referring to there ? 

Mr. Harrison. Mr. Kleindienst's, except as you may recall it was 
months later. 

Mr. Summers. Now in the last paragraph of this same letter, you 
state that, "In a week or two I'll endeavor to zero in." AVhat affirmative 
action did you take to "zero in" on this matter ? 

Mr. Harrison. Nothing until several months later because Mr. 
Kleindienst didn't get confirmed until several months later. In fact, 
you said awhile ago it was June, so it was more than several months. 

Mr. Weitz. What did you intend to do — what did you intend to 
mean by that letter, or that phrase ? 

Mr. Harrison. I intended to do precisely what I did except I in- 
tended to do it much sooner because I anticipated the confirmation 
would occur much sooner and that is, to go see Mr. Kleindienst as 
Attorney General, not merely as Acting Attorney General, and explain 
to him the facts as reported to me and ask his advice on what, if any- 
thing, could be done to gain for this client the same measure of treat- 
ment as other defendants got in civil antitrust suits. 

Mr. Summers. I refer you now, Mr. Harrison, to the second letter 
dated February 25, to Stuart Kussell. 

In the first paragraph of this letter you state, "There's nothing like 
being able to control a subordinate or, plirased another way, beware 
of confirmed judges who aren't judging yet." What did you mean by 
that? 

Mr. Harrison. It requires knowing the story of Judge INIcLaren's 
confirmation. Richard McLaren was nominated and confirmed very 
quickly. I have heard it said that in recent years nobody on the Federal 
bench has been nominated and confirmed so quickly. As I recall it 
was a matter of hours, all in 1 day. But then he didn't leave the Justice 
Department for a month or two after that, so he was a confirmed judge 
still sitting as Assistant Attorney General and he churned out, I am 
told, several antitrust cases of which this was merely one, and obvi- 
ously issued instructions to the people down the line as to the time- 
tables and other matters as to how those cases were to be handled. 

Now bear in mind, Stuart Russell and George Mehren knew all of 
that. They may have known it on their own or I may have told them. 
But at any i-ate, in a couple of conversations before this letter — bear 
in mind this letter is a substitute for the concluding conversation on 
the subject I am referring to, and franklv I think that's a pretty good 
axiom. There isn't anything like the ability of a superior to control 
his subordinate. 

Mr. Summers. Which superior were you referring to when you 
said "control the subordinate" ? 

Mr. Harrison. The Chicago office of the Antitrust Division which 
was and is as I understand it in charge of this case. 

Mr. Summers. So you're referring to more than one individual? 
You mean collectively, all of those people in the Chicago office who 
were working on this antitrust suit ? 



7688 

Mr. Harrisox. Plus all the pec pie in the Washington office who 
were working on it. 

Mr. Summers. Would that include Mr. Walker Comegys who was 
Acting Assistant Attorney General when Judge McLaren left? 

Mr. Harrisox. If he was involved in this case, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Would it include Mr. McLaren ? 

INIr. Harrisox. No, because it was his instruction. 

Mr. Weitz. In other words, you are not referring to Mr. Mitchell 
controlling Mr. McLai*en ? 

Mr. Harrisox. No, no. I'm referring to Judge McLaren controlling 
his subordinates. I don't know whether you've ever worked in the 
Government or not, but I have and I've been at various levels of the 
totem pole and I think it's a very fundamental axiom that if a superior 
sends down an instimction, barring something most unusual, that 
instruction is going to be followed. 

Mr. Weitz. Didn't John Mitchell send out an instruction by sign- 
ing the complaint to his subordinate. Judge McLaren ? 

Mr. Harrisox. That's not the way I interpret the functioning of 
the Antitrust Division. 

Mr. Summers. The antitrust suit was filed on February 1. Judge 
McLaren left office, as I understand, on February 2. The date of the 
writing of this letter is February 25. Now are you stating that Judge 
McLaren, even though he had gone, still retained some sort of con- 
trol of the lawsuit? 

Mr. Harrisox. I am stating that his instruction was still binding. 

IVIr. Summers. In spite of the fact that there was an Acting As- 
sistant Attorney General for Antitrust and at the time of the writing 
of this letter there was a new Attornev General nominated ? 

Mr. Harrisox. But not confirmed. I hasten to tell you, Mr. Sum- 
mers, my experience is that pereons occupying governmental positions 
in acting capacities, be they active candidates for nomination or 
otherwise, are very reluctant to overrule instructions of predecessors 
and probably the better part of wisdom in most instances is that they 
not do so. 

Mr. Summers. In terms of negotiations of this suit after the suit 
was filed, have you participated in the negotiations that may have 
taken place between the Justice Depai'tment and AMPI since the 
time period that we have just been discussing? 

Mr. Harrisox. No. 

INIr. Weitz. Are you aware of anv efforts by AMPI to make addi- 
tional contributions prior to April Y, 1972^I'm sorry, not AMPI 
but TAPE or CTAPE, to the President's reelection campaign? 

Mr. Harrisox. I don't understand the import of your question. All 
contributions prior to April 7, 1972 

Mr. Weitz. From January 1, 1972, to April 7. 1972, were you 
aware of any efforts during that period by TAPE or CTAPE to 
make contributions to the President's reelection campaign? 

Mr. Harrisox. No. I was aware of almost virtuallv nothing between 
the change in management in Januai-y 1972 in AINIPI and April 7, 
1972. Or, for that matter, June 30, 1972.' 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware of any contacts between representatives 
of AMPI during that period and Mr. Kalmbach ? 



7689 ^ ■ 

INIr. Harrisox. Somewhere along the line I learned that Dr. Mehren 
had met with INIr. Kalmbach but I don't think I learned it during the 
period I was still retained by AMPI. 

Mr. Weitz. "What was your understanding of the purpose and sub- 
stance of those contacts, or contact ? 

Mr. Harrison. AVell, I had no understanding. I also had consider- 
able curiosity as to why the meeting in view of the fact that Dr. INIeh- 
ren's comments to me about the administration in general — and I'm 
not referring to ad hominem comments — were quite negative. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he indicate that he did not want to make any con- 
tributions? 

Mr. Harrison. In spirit, perhaps, if not in words. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware of any contacts during that same 
period between representatives of AMPI and Secretary Connally? 

Mr. Harrison. Xo. The entire Connally bit, such as it may be, I have 
become aware of quite recently through hearsay, the newspapers and 
television being asked questions about Mr. Connally and myself whom 
I have never met. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know of any other contacts or eiforts made be- 
tween representatives of AMPI during that period and those in Gov- 
ernment, outside of the Chicago office of the Justice Department, in 
connection with the antitrust suit ? 

Mr. Harrison. No. 

Mr. Weitz. I have one other area. Would you like — Don, would you 
like to ask a question ? 

Mr. Sanders. No questions. 

Mr. Weitz. I have one other brief area I'd like to ask you about. 
Are you aware of any contact between Murray Chotiner and Herb 
Kalmbach on either March 24 or ISIarch 25, 1971 ? 

Mr. Harrison. Clue me in as to what happened on those two dates. 

Mr. Weitz. All right ; let me step back for a moment. Do you recall 
a meeting on March 23, 1971, between the President and certain dairy 
leaders ? 

INIr. Harrison. Yes. I was there. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall that on March 25, 1971, 2 days later, the 
administration announced an increase in milk price supports' 

Mr. Harrison. I can't attribute the date, but I do recall it was 2 days 
later. 

Mr. Weitz. Then that would be March 25. During that period from 
the time of the meeting with the President and the time of the an- 
nouncement of milk price supports, do you have any knowledge of any 
contacts or meetings between Mr. Chotiner and Mr. Kalmbach ? 

INIr. Harrison. Yes. I know of one. 

Mr. Weitz. And how did you come to that knowledge ? 

Mr. Harrison. I was told by Mr. Chotiner. 

jNIr. Weitz. Do you recall when he told you ? 

Mr. Harrison. I figured that would be your next question and I 
was trying to think in advance of about when it was. 

Mr. Weitz. Would it have been shortly after the meeting? 

ISIr. Harrison. No. A ffood bit thereafter. 

Mr. Weitz. Within 1 971 ? 

Mr. Harrison. It might have been within 1971 but a very good bit 
thereafter, many months — if even 1971 at all. 



7690 

Mr. Weitz. Do you place any connection with arrangemerits to have 
TAPE make contributions to the President's campaign in 1971 — in 
other words, did the conversation take place in connection with con- 
versations relating to contributions ? 

Mr. Harrison. Would you like to repeat, or restate, that question ? 

Mr. Weitz. Your conversation with Mr. Chotiner in which he 
informed you of his prior meeting with ]Mr. Kalmbach, did that con- 
versation take place in connection with you discussing with Mr. 
Chotiner then ongoing contributions by the dairy people to the Presi- 
dent's reelection campaign ? 

Mr. Harrison. No. As I recall it took place at about the time counsel 
for plaintiff in Nader v. Butz was taking, or was going to take, my 
deposition and Mr. Chotiner's deposition. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you tell us what Mr. Chotiner told you about this 
meeting ? 

Mr. Harrison. Yes. He told me that he and Harold Nelson, who, in 
1971, was general manager of AMPI, had a brief meeting with Mr. 
Kalmbach and that the meeting was the evening of the Republican 
fimdraising dinner in March 1971 — some of this I might have been 
listing while he was deposing. He may not have been telling me as much 
as telling the record. But at any rate, I think it's still responsive to your 
question and he probably said the hotel at which the meeting took 
place, but I don't recall that oifhand. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall whether it was the Madison Hotel ? 

Mr. Harrison. It was either the Madison or else it was the Wash- 
ington Hilton. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he tell you how he came to meet with Mr. Kalmbach ? 

Mr. Harrison. "VYliat do you mean by "how" ? 

Mr. Weitz. Who arranged for the meeting ; what the purpose of the 
meeting was. 

Mr. Harrison. No. But I got the impression that either he or Mr. 
Kalmbach arranged it. I am not sure he ever told me that in so many 
words. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he mention Mr. Ehrlichman's name in connection 
with the arrangements for the meeting ? 

Mr. Harrison. No. 

Mr. Weitz. What did he tell you transpired at the meeting ? 

Mr. Harrison. He told me that Harold Nelson reiterated to Herbert 
Kalmbach that the dairy cooperatives wanted to make further con- 
tributions to the Nixon Presidential campaign. 

Mr. Weitz. What was Mr. Kalmbach's response as related to you 
by Mr. Chotiner? 

Mr. Harrison. Do you want to know the truth ? His response was 
that Mr. Kalmbach was very sleepy and he thought they had probably 
awakened him and that he thought Mr. Kalmbach was a rather unen- 
thusiastic solicitor of campaign contributions and that was said, I 
hasten to say, in a somewhat lighthearted manner. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he tell you anything else that was said at the 
meetinsr? 

Mr. Harrison. No. I don't think so. As I recall he said it was a very 
brief meeting. 



7691 

Mr. Weitz. Now in your previous appearance and testimony before 
this committee — and 1 don't want to go into it — I believe you indi- 
cated there was at least one previous meeting in 1970 which you at- 
tended and the topic of which was ways in which — you know, setting 
up of committees to receive contributions from the dairy trusts for the 
President's reelection campaign. 

Now, could you tell me whether you understood from Mr. Chotiner 
what the purpose of this meeting between him, Mr. Nelson, and Mr. 
Kalmbach was on March 24 in view of those earlier meetings where 
such arrangements and declarations had perhaps already been stated? 

Mr. Harrison. I was and still am a little unclear of the full pur- 
pose. The logical purpose would be that way back in November of 1970 
at the meeting to which you refer there was discussion that names and 
addresses of committees and committee officers would be furnished to 
the dairy co-ojjs so that the dairy co-ops could make contributions to 
the Nixon campaign and it was then 5 or 6 months later and nobody 
had produced the name of committee No. 1. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Mr. Chotiner in any way indicate to you that the 
purpose, or in some way — some of the discussion of this meeting be- 
tween Kalmbach and Nelson on March 24, related to the milk price 
support decisions? 

Mr. Harrison. No. 

JNIr. Weitz. Did he say it did not? Or did he just not refer to it ? 

Mr. Harrison. I don't recall his referring one way or another. 

Mr. Weitz. Are you on good terms with Charles Colson ? 

Mr. Harrison. I rather doubt that I am too high on Chuck Colson's 
list of admirers, but I'm not sure. 

]Mr, Weitz. Did Mr. Chotiner in any way indicate that your rela- 
tions with ]\Ir. Colson were the subject matter of any meetings he had 
with the dairy people or Republican fund raisers? When I say "your 
relations," your esteem, and so forth, in Mr. Colson's view. 

Mr. Harrison. Long thereafter, ISIurray Chotiner told me that he 
had learned Chuch Colson wanted to steer our client away from me 
to somebody who was less difficult or easier to get along with, more 
amenable or more pliable. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, without casting any aspersions on you or anyone 
else, was this in connection with the — in 1972 — any increased repre- 
sentation for AMPI by Jake Jacobsen or his firm? 

Mr. Harrison. No. I have no knowledge of the Jacobsen people en- 
tering into this at all. 

Mr. AVeitz. But you say that Mr. Chotiner indicated this to you 
"long after," long after what? Your representation of AMPI had 
ceased? 

Mr. Harrison. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. He didn't indicate that to you at any time in 1971 ? 

Mr. Harrison. Oh, no. In fact, I think it was in 1973. 

Mr. Weitz. Is there anything else that you can recall that Mr. 
Chotiner related to you about the meeting between himself and Mr. 
Nelson and Mr. Kalmbach on March 24? 

Mr. Harrison. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he tell you what was decided, or whether anything 
at all was decided at the meeting, other than Mr. Nelson's declaration 
and Mr. Kalmbach's somewhat unenthusiastic or sleepy response? 



7692 

Mr. Harrison. Oh, yes. That the fiindraising effort would o;et on 
the ball and in due course they'd come up with some names of com- 
mittees and names and addresses of officers of the committees. 

Mr. Weitz. When did you learn of the milk price-si'pport decision — 
that it would be increased? 

Mr. Harrisox. The day it was announced. 

Mr. Weitz. March 25? 

Mr. Harrison. If that's the day it was announced. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you learn it shortly before, or at the time of the 
public announcement? 

Mr. Harrison. I learned it either at that time or a few minutes 
before. I I'eceived a call from somebody in the Agriculture Depart- 
ment who said that the messengers were on the way to the Hill, or had 
gone to the Hill — I don't recall which — and the decision was about to 
be announced, or was being announced. 

Mr. Weitz. You didn't learn of it the evening before at the Eepub- 
lican fundraising dinner or shortly thereafter? 

Mr. Harrison. Absolutely not. 

Mr. Weitz. If Mr. Chotiner had known about the decision to increase 
price supports the previous evening, it's your belief he would have 
told you of his information — of that information? 

Mr. Harrison. I think he would have. 

Mv. Weitz. He didn't do so? 

Mr. Harrison. He did not do so. 

Mr, Weitz. To your knoAvledge, did he know of the price support 
increase before it was announced on the 25th ? 

Mr. Harrison. To my knowledge, he did not. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Sanders, do you have any questions? 

Mr. Sanders. No questions. 

Mr. Weitz. Senator? Any questions? 

Thank you, Mr. Harrison. 

Thank you, very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11 :20 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
adjourned.] 



TUESDAY, APBIL 2, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in room 
109, Russell Senate Office Building. 

Present : Senator Talmaclge. 

Also present: James Hamilton, assistant chief counsel; Donald 
Sanders, deputy minority counsel; Richard L. Schultz assistant 
minority counsel. 

Senator Talmadge. We might as well go ahead and swear the 
witness. 

Would you please stand up and raise your right hand ? Do you, Joe 
Johnson, solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give the Select 
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities of 1972 shall be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the ti-utli, so help you God ? 

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Tauhauge. All right. Now you are recognized, Mr. 
Williams. 

Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, first off, Mr. John- 
son's first appearance, as I am sure Mr. Sanders will concede — at that 
he appeared voluntarily. Xow, he could have made a transcript or not 
made a transcript. You had a girl there reporting things and we didn't 
object to that and even ask for a copy of the transcript, which wasn't 
available. He testified then as to all the details of what went on, both 
with respect to his employment by the Associated Milk Producers, 
Inc., and its predecessor, and then as to his role with the Mills 
campaign. 

Now^, it came back into focus in connection with the records of the 
Mills campaign — and I don't mean to be disrespectful to the commit- 
tee. Senator, I mean Mr. Chairman — but we first started coming up 
here and our people appeared voluntaril}' and it was only shortly 
thereafter that we began to read in the national newspapers about all 
this and we, that is, people comiected with the campaign, began to get 
calls from reporters, where they either liad read to them or received 
verbatim transcripts of investigators' reports about certain activities. 
That is when we just said that our voluntary cooperation Avas going 
to cease because there is just no point in coming up here and talking 
about things and then reading about them in the newspapers, particu- 
larly where there are inaccuracies in the newspapers. 

Your concern, Mr. Sanders, with Joe Johnson ''round two," let's 
call it, arose when he had the records from the campaign and you 
wanted those records and we talked and he could have been in on 

(7693) 



7694 

April 1 and I jokingly said that we wouldn't come in on April 1 
because our appearance on that date might be suspect, but we agreed 
to come in on April 2 and bring all of the records. 

Your concern at that time was whether any of the records had been 
destroyed or otherwise altered and I said that he will answer the ques- 
tions about that to the extent that he has not altered or destroyed any 
of the records. Then you wanted to get back into the milk thing and 
our position on that is he is not going to testify. This is the subject 
of grand jury investigation. We have no assurance and indeed no assur- 
ance can be made by even this committee that this won't appear in the 
newspapers in a distorted form. The grand jury is not sequestered and 
they could read this and they could form the wrong interpretation and 
Mr. Johnson could be summoned before the grand jury and there is 
just no telling what could happen. 

Mr. Sanders. I would like to proceed with the questioning I sup- 
pose. That is where we stand, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Talmadge. "What about Mr. Williams' argument? 

Mr. Sanders. Sir. do you want me to respond to it ? 

Senator Talmadge. Yes, either you or Mr. Hamilton. First, let me 
ask this question : Do you intend to plead the fifth amendment for 
Mr. Johnson? 

Ml". Williams. We intend to assert all of his constitutional privi- 
leges and encompass therein his privilege, as recognized by the Dis- 
tinct of Columbia, against incrimination, penalty, and forfeiture, in- 
cludhig public degradation. Now we don't want to be put in a posi- 
tion — that is, Mr. Johnson has not read the Constitution in full since 
his days in college and he is not going to respond to the question "Do 
you plead the fifth amendment?" He is going to read a statement 
prepared by his counsel and is under my instructions in this regard. 

Mr. Sanders. Then I would like to respond, Mr. Chairman. Just 
for the record, there was a subpena issued and signed by Senator Baker 
dated March 18 for Mr. Johnson. Soon after it had been given to the 
marslial for service, I did receive a call from Mr. Williams saying he 
would voluntarily appear, so the subpena has been withdrawn and has 
not yet been served. The reason for requesting the subpena in the first 
place was that Mr. Williams had said that Mr. Johnson had the rec- 
ords, which had been returned by the Special Prosecutor, but that he 
would not voluntarily bring them in. So, therefore, I requested the 
issuance of a subpena. 

These records had been in the possession of the Special Prosecutor 
for some time and liad been given to the Prosecutor by Mr. Williams. 
Tliev are Draft Mills' records and had before that been in the custody 
of Mr. George Jernigan. I had subpenaed Mr. Jernigan, and then 
Mr. Jernigran told me they had been given to the Special Prosecutor 
and the Special Prosecutor wouldn't release them to me, but finally 
said lie was finished with them. 

Senator Taijmadge. But what is your response to the argument 
about the grand jury investigation ? 

Mr. Sanders. Well, I think that the nature of that argument is 
pleading the fifth amendment. That is my understanding of the true 
nature of what he is saying. And if Mr. Johnson asserts the fifth 
amendment — and I don't want to ask a long series of questions; I want 
only to ask a few — and if he asserts the privilege of tlie fifth amend- 
ment, I think there is no recourse but to adjourn the session. 



7695 

Senator Talmadge. That is my understanding of the law. You may 
proceed with your questions and if counsel wants to invoke the fifth 
amendment, he may do so. 

Mr. Williams. All right. 

Mr. Sanders. You have already stated your name for the record. 
Would you state your place of residence ? 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH P. JOHNSON, ACCOMPANIED BY J. D. 
WILLIAMS AND ERIC ROITER, COUNSEL 

Mr. Johnson. 907 Sixth Street SW., Apartment 515C, Washington, 
D.C. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have any other residence ? 

Mr. Johnson. I list as a permanent home address the residence of 
my oldest daughter in Arlington, 1806 Hershaw Street. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have a place of business other than your 
residence ? 

Mr. Johnson. No, sir ; negative. 

Mr. Sanders. And what is your present employment ? 

Mr. Williams. Well, hold on here. I mean if you want to go into the 
question of the records, which is the initial reason we are here, that 
is 

Mr. Sanders. This isn't going to take but a minute, Mr. Williams. 
I am trying to make it very quick. I just want a little background. 

Mr. Williams. Well, I thought you wanted the records. We turned 
over the records. If you want to ask some questions about the records, 
OK. I will state that the witness will state the following answers to 
three questions: First, the records turned over were the ones he re- 
ceived in my office and the answer to that one would be "Yes." Second, 
he has not destroyed, altered, or mutilated in any way those records 
turned over to him in my office, and the answer to that question would 
be "No." Third, to the best of his knowledge no one else has destroyed, 
altered, or mutilated any of those i.^cords. 

Now would those be your answers to those questions? 

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hamilton. I would suggest on the other areas you want to get 
into, that you ask those questions now so you will get a ruling. 

^Ir. Williams. He will read a statement also. He has given his name 
and address and has been sworn. If you want to ask him to read the 
statement — or I will read it for him 

Mr. Sanders. I would like to ask a few questions which would be 
relevant to your responding in this matter. 

Senator Talmadge. I think you can get over to the important ques- 
tion where counsel can state his reasons for refusing to answer and 
then we can get a ruling there. 

Mr. Sanders. All right. In August 1971 there was in Arkansas an 
appreciation day for Chairman Wilbur Mills. Following that event, 
and while you were still on the AMPI payroll, did you provide any 
assistance to the Draft Mills campaign ? 

Mr. Williams. First off, he has already answered questions like that 
in much more detail. Rut just for the purpose of protecting the record, 
I want to read the following statement on behalf of Mr. Jolinson. 

As you know, Mr. Sanders, he went into some detail and answered 
questions like that, even those that were pure speculations about per- 



7696 

centages, and then we read in the newspapers about his answers very 
shortly thereafter. But just let me read this statement 

Mr. Sanders. Mr. Chairman, what Mr. Williams has just said is in 
the nature of argument rather than a response to the question and I 
would like an opportunity 

Mr. Williams. Well, I would respond — here is what he will respond 
to. Now, if you want him to read it himself, he will read it. 

Mr. Sanders. I think the witness should read it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Johnson. Acting; on instructions of my counsel. I respectfully 
refuse to answer any questions other than those enumerated earlier 
relating to any aspect of my employment by AMPI or the period 
thereafter. The bases for this position have been enumerated earlier 
by my counsel, but they encompass my constitutional priA'ileges and, 
without limitation, I enumerate amongst those constitutional privi- 
leges, the privilege to avoid compulsory penalty and forfeiture, in- 
cluding public degradation. 

I wish to point out that I have appeared earlier without any re- 
striction and I have voluntarily turned over all campaign-related rec- 
ords in my possession. The only other records of which I have personal 
knowledge are those on file with GAO or which have been available 
for inspection by the committee. 

Senator Talmadge. Do I understand that your response is that you 
stand on every constitutional rigrht you have; is that correct, Mr. 
Johnson ? 

Mr. Johnson. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Talmadge. I think he has invoked the fifth amendment, as 
I understand it. 

Mr. Sanders. All right, ISfr. Chairman. I want to say in response 
to the mention that he has testified before, in the first place he has 
not testified before. He was interviewed previously . 

Second, since that time, and I said this before, but it was before the 
young lady began to record, new information has c<)me to our atten- 
tion; some of it contained in the Wright report, which is an internal 
investigation conducted by A^IPI. and some of it which I learned act- 
ing upon information from the Wright report. And these are some 
new areas that have come to my attention and that I wanted to ask 
him about. There are three or four separate categories there. Now, they 
don't all relate specifically to the question I have just asked. The ques- 
tion is — shall T state it difPerently ? Should I state the different areas? 

Senator Talmadge. Do you intend to invoke the fifth amendment on 
any and all questions the counsel asks ? 

Mr. Williams. His statement is all-encompassing, INIr. Chairman, 
for any question, no mattei* how unrelated, or Avhatever. And under — 
particularly under the laws of the District of Columbia, you Avaive 
your constitutional privileges, and not just the fifth amendment but 
others, if he answers any questions. 

And he gave his name and address and he permitted himself to be 
sworn. He has appeared voluntarily without anv need of subpena. We 
think the witness has done all that is required by the law. 

Mr. Sanders. May I ask this? INIr. Johnson, do you intend to assert 
all of your constitutional privileges to any question T would ask con- 
cerning your activities for oi- on behalf of the Mills campaign for the 
Presidency in 1972? 



7697 

Mr. Williams. Now, I object to this. This is exactly what we got 
into before. And since the McCarthy days it has been recognized — and 
Ave don't want this witness to be put into this position — ^it has been 
recognized you can't ask questions like "Wlien did you stop beating 
your wife?" — those kinds of questions. And what has been done in the 
past is when the witness has indicated an attempt to invoke the fifth 
amendment, then the questioning has stopped. I mean, you know, you 
could ask him ""WTien did you stop beating your wif e ?" 

Mr. Sanders. I don't intend to ask a question like that. 

Mr. Williams. Well, don't ask any questions then. He has read his 
statement. 

Mr. Sanders. I have several categories here, but they would all per- 
tain to the Mills for President campaign in 1972. 

Mr. Williams. Well, you have gone over this once. 

Mr. Sanders. What I am saying is, are you saying that you would 
invoke that same privilege to every question in that period ? 

Mr. Williams. He has stated before, his employment and periods 
thereafter, and that encompasses today, tomorrow, and whatever. The 
statement speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sanders, you had a number of opportunities during the last 
year to talk to these witnesses. Now, all of a sudden right after the 
chairman says that in his opinion the President is going to be knocked 
out of office, then we have this sudden interest in him 

Mr. Sanders. That predated any criticism by Chairman Mills and 
I think you are making undue use of the record for propaganda pur- 
poses and I think it is improper. You are making accusations and 
requii'ing me to respond to them. 

Mr. Williams. I am not requiring you to do anything. As I say, he 
turned over the records. You can read them at your heart's content. 

Mr. Sanders. Well, if the chairman feels that the witness has suffi- 
ciently invoked his privilege 

Senator Talmadge. That is my understanding of what the witness 

Mr. Hamilton. May I make a suggestion ? 

Senator Talmadge. Sure. 

Mr. Hamilton. May I suggest that you rule that his refusal to 
testify is justified on the basis of the fifth amendment, and the fifth 
amendment alone, and not other unspecified constitutional privileges? 

Mr. Williams. You are requiring, in effect, the chairman to mle in 
such areas as the invasion of rights of priva'cy and you could get into 
any number of areas. Noav he says he asserts all of his constitutional 
privileges. I don't think it is fair to put the chairman in the position 
of limiting it to just one privilege, 
hear that. 

Mr. Williams. I don't think it is right for the chairman, even as 
astute as he is, to ask him these questions, some of which the Supreme 
Court hasn't ruled on, is in fairness to him. 

Mr. Hamilton. If you would like to argue his right of privacy and 
why the chairman should rule right now on that, we will be happy to 

Mr. Hamilton. That is the purpose of the presiding officer. 

Mr. Williams. I accept his ruling and, if you gentlemen agree, we 
can adjourn. 



7698 

Mr. Hamilton. But I suggest that the ruling be couched in terms of 
the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Williams. Well I object to that. What would happen then, we 
would be laying inadvertently aside his other constitutional rights. 

Senator Talmadge. If I understand the witness' statement cor- 
rectly, he invoked each and every provision of the Constitution that he 
possesses, including the right for protection against self-incrimination 
under the fifth amendment. And it was the ruling of the chairman 
that if he invokes the fifth amendment, that would prohibit further 
interrogation of the witness based only on that. 

Mr. Williams. That is right. We accept that too. 

Mr. Sanders. May I ask a couple of additional questions that would 
relate only to the i*ecords ? 

Mr. WiLLL\MS. Now, you had your chance to do that. 

Mr. Sanders. I have not had my chance. You stated three answers to 
questions that I hadn't even asked, and I have not asked a single ques- 
tion on the records. 

Mr. Williams. Now, he read his answer. If you want to talk to him 
privately, that is fine. You see the point I am making 

Mr. Sanders. Mr. Cliairman, I would like to ask the witness one or 
two or three questions concerning the records that he has produced 
pursuant to the subpena duces tecum. 

Mr. Williams. He has read his statement. First, there was no sub- 
pena. We didn't require a subpena. This man has appeared voluntarily. 

Senator Talmadge. I think that is irrelevant. The only thing that is 
relevant here is whether he has invoked the fifth amendment and, as I 
understand the witness, he has. I think that would 

Mr. Williams. I want to state that if Mr. Sanders wants to ask pri- 
vately about the information, we would be happy to liave that. 

Mr. Sanders. I want to ask about everything you received from 
him, Mr. Johnson, and all of the 

Mr. Williams. I stated that he has turned over everything he had 
received from me. I don't know what the Prosecutor has furnished. I 
am not that privy to Mr. Jaworski's actions. 

Mr. Sanders. I think we have gone about as far as we can go, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Senator Talmadge. That is my conclusion, gentlemen, unless you 
can negotiate amongst yourselves and find out what areas he is willing 
to testify on, if any. 

Mr. Sanders. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your 
time. 

Mr. Williams. Would this constitute a dismissal of the witness? 

Senator Talmadge. Is there anything further ? 

[No response.] 

Senator Talmadge. It does. 

[Whereupon at 3 :50 p.m. the committee recessed, subject to the call 
of the Chair.] 



THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign AcTivrriES, 

Washington^ D.C 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 :13 a.m., in 
room G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building. 

Present : Senator Baker, presiding. 

Also present : James Hamilton, assistant chief counsel ; and Donald 
Sanders, deputy minority counsel. 

Senator Baker. The committee will come to order. We have today 
Mr. Chestnut as our witness. We are ready to proceed. Would coun- 
sel identify themselves for the record. 

Mr. Thomson. My name is Douglas Thomson, lawyer from St. Paul, 
Minn. My address is 55 East Fifth Street. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Cochrane. I am John Cochrane, lawyer, St. Paul, Minn. My 
address is 830 Minnesota Building, St. Paul, Minn. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, gentlemen. My name is Howard Baker. 
I am vice chairman of the committee. This proceeding is in the nature 
of an executive session of the Select Committee on Presidential 
Campaign Activities, which is authorized to be conducted imder the 
provisions of the resolution creating the committee and the rules and 
bylaws of the committee. 

I understand the subpena now has been served on Mr. Chestnut. I 
would ask that counsel make that subpena part of the record at this 
point. 

[The material referred to appears on page 7704.] 

Senator Baker. Mr. Chestnut, if you would stand and raise your 
right hand, I will administer the oath now. 

Mr. Cochrane. If I could make just one statement, Senator. As I 
understand the rules of this committee, these hearings are secret and 
confidential under executive session under rule 12 of your rules. 

Senator Baker. That is correct. 

Mr. Cochrane. I would ask the Senator to instruct me, the witness, 
Mr. Thomson, and other counsel present and the reporter that they are 
so secret, shall remain secret until the committee, by majority rule, 
decides to make them public or not. 

Senator Baker. The request is perfectly in order and is entirely 
agreeable, and the chairman so instructs. 

Mr. Cochrane. Thank you. 

Senator Baker. Mr. Ctiestnut, would you hold up your right hand, 
please. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 

(7699) 



7700 

give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr. Chestnut. I do. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, sir; you may be seated. And if you 
would identify yourself for the record, please. 

TESTIMONY OF JACK CHESTNUT, ACCOMPANIED BY DOUGLAS W. 
THOMSON AND JOHN A. COCHRANE, COUNSEL 

Mr. Chestnut. I am Jack Chestnut. I reside at S282 Owaso Heights 
Boulevard, St. Paul, Minn. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, sir. Would counsel then proceed with 
the examination of the witness. 

Mr. Sanders. Yes, sir. Would you state your office address, please ? 

Mr. Chestnut. 854 Midland Bank Building, Minneaj>olis, Minn. 

Mr. Sanders. Now, you previously appeared before personnel of 
the committee for interview on October 18, 1973. and we have a tran- 
script of Ward & Paul of that interview. We asked you at that time 
a number of questions about your personal background, your work 
in the campaigns for Senator Humphrey, and I don't want to take the 
time to cover all of that ground again. I might just summarize myself, 
quickly, for the purposes of this transcript. 

My understanding is that you are practicing law in Minneapolis 
at the present time, with the firm Chestnut, Brooks & Burkhart ; that 
you served for Senator Humphrey as an advance man from 1963 to 
1968; that you were his campaign manager for his 1970 senatorial 
campaign ; and his campaign manager for his 1972 Presidential cam- 
paign. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Chestnut. Senator, counsel, upon advice of counsel, I respect- 
fully refuse to answer upon the grounds that it may tend to incrimi- 
nate me. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Cochrane. Senator, may I say I have advised — Mr. Thomson 
and I have advised our client to give this specific answer to all ques- 
tions put to him at this executive session, and we will do that. 

Senator Baker. All right. Now, to qualify the questions and the 
claim of the witness, let me put a few questions, if I may. 

Mr. Cochrane. Yes, sir. 

Senator Baker. You understand the nature of the questions put 
by counsel? Is it agreeable for your client to answer these questions? 
If not, you may say so. 

Mr. Cochrane. Well, I am sure Mr. Chestnut understands the 
questions, but T have instnicted him to assert his fifth 

Senator Baker. Answer no questions at all ? 

Mr. Cochrane. Answer no questions and assert the fifth amendment 
privilege. 

Senator Baker. Well, that is a little broader, really, than the Chair 
would care to rule on in one ruling; that is, that any question that 
might be put in this session would be subject to the claim of personal 
privilege under the fifth amendment to the Constitution. And my pur- 
pose in asking the question I just did, was to lay the basis for asking 
him if he would answer any questions at all, regardless of their nature 
and content. 



7701 

Mr. Cochrane. He would assert the fifth amendment privilege upon 
advice of counsel on any question put to him, on the nature of any 
inquiry legitimately made under Senate Resolution 60, pertaining 
to any area of inquiry that this committee may choose to delve in. 
And I am sure the committee is not going to go into areas not qualified, 
so in any areas legitimately before the committee, he will assert the 
constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, sir. Does counsel have anything further? 

Mr. Sanders. Senator, I would propose this course, so we don't un- 
necessarily prolong the proceeding. 

There were about half a dozen, roughly, categories of information 
that we intended to inquire about. And I would propose simply asking 
maybe one question in each category to establish that he will not 
answer in that area. 

Senator Baker. I think the statement of counsel probably already 
answers that, I think, to track the procedures that the committee has 
followed in the past, that what you suggest is appropriate, Mr. 
Sanders. 

The Chair specifically disclaims any desire to run this witness 
through a long series of constitutional claims. But to make the record 
complete, I think it is appropriate to ask not more than one question 
in the major categories of inquiry that you had in mind, and that the 
claim be made in those respects. So the Chair rules that you may pro- 
■!eed in that respect. 

Mr. Sanders. All right. Mr. Chestnut, are you acquainted with 
1 obert. Lilly of Associated Milk Producers, Inc. ? 

Mr. Chestnut. Senator, upon advice of counsel 

Senator Baker. You can paraphrase that you make the same claim 
in this respect. 

Mr. Chestnut. I make the same claim. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. Did Mr. Lilly make a $10,000 contribution in May of 
1970 to the Humphrey campaign ? 

Senator Baker. You make the same claim ? 

Mr. Chestnut. I make the same claim. 

Senator Baker. Thank you. 

Mr. Sanders. In October of 1970, did Mr. Lilly make a $12,500 cash 
contribution to the Humphrey campaign ? 

Mr. Chestnut. I make the same claim. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. Mr. Chestnut, did you have any involvement in ar- 
ranging for Associated Milk Producers to make a payment to Len- 
nen & Newell, Inc. of New York City on the account of Senator Hum- 
phrey in 1970? 

Mr. Chestnut. Senator, I make the same claim. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you have any involvement in 1971, in arranging 
for the payment by Associated Milk Producers Inc., a payment to 
Valentine, Sherman & Associates which was credited to the account of 
the Humphrey campaign at that time? 

Mr. Chestnut. Senator, I make the same claim. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, sir. Do you have other questions? 

Mr. Hamilton. I was going to do that area, Senator, and Don's 
question takes care of it. 



7702 

Senator Baker. All right, fine. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have knowledge, Mr. Chestnut, of any arrange- 
ments which were made for the sale of Archer-Daniels-Midland stock 
by persons, to the end that they could make a contribution of proceeds 
of these sales to the Humphrey campaign in 1972 ? 

Senator Baker. Same claim ? 

Mr. Chestnut. Senator, yes ; I make the same claim. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you participate in a contact with John Loeb in 
1972, for the purpose of seeking from him a contribution to the 
Humphrey campaign? 

Mr. Chestnut. Senator, I make the same claim. 

Senator Baker. Very well. The Chair rules that the questions put 
by Counsel are relevant; under the scope and the authority of the 
committee according to Senate Resolution 60, and understands that 
the witness has, on the advice of counsel, declined to answer each ques- 
tion without, as far as the Chair can ascertain, a question as to the 
relevance of the question. 

Mr. Cochrane. Well, Your Honor; Your Honor, if I may 

Senator Baker. I am not going to ask you to say that. The Chair 
rules that the questions put are relevant and are within the scope and 
purview and the authority of the committee, under Senate Resolution 
60, and understands that the witness has claimed his privilege accord- 
ing to the fifth amendment to the Constitution with respect to each 
question ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Cochrane. That is correct. 

Senator Baker. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Cochrane. Can we make an exception to the Chair's ruling? 

Senator Baker. Yes, you may. 

Mr. Cochrane. Thank you. 

Senator Baker. Now, does counsel have any other matter, any other 
proceeding or any other questions ? 

Mr. Sanders. I just have one more remark, Senator, if I may. And 
that is that I think counsel's and the witness' invocation initially of the 
privilege is even broader than the categories I have inquired about. But 
I did want to insure that the understanding here, today, is that the in- 
vocation is not necessarily limited strictly to the categories I have in- 
quired about, because there are tangential matters relating, and I say 
here, to the 1972 Presidential campaign. And I would like to be sure 
we understand that any questions concerning Mr. Chestnut's service for 
Senator Humphrey in the 1972 Presidential campaign would receive 
the same claim of privilege. 

Mr. Cochrane. You are quite correct, counsel. 

Senator Baker. And you understand, of course, that the Chair's 
rule is that your questions, including the questions about the 1972 cam- 
paign, are relevant and within the scope and jurisdiction of the 
committee. 

Mr. Sanders. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cochrane. An informational point, Senator, Your Honor, Are 
we entitled to a transcript of this ? 

Senator Baker. You are entitled to see the transcript, and you are 
entitled to receive and purchase a copy of the transcript on the au- 
thorization of the committee ; and I will be glad to recommend to the 
committee that they authorize that if you wish. 



7703 

Mr. Cochrane. I would appreciate that, Your Honor. We, therefore 
order— Senator, we order and will pay for, either upon receipt or 
advance billing, we will pay. 

Senator Baker. The matter will be taken up then at the next execu- 
tive session. You will be notified. In the meantime you are free to see a 
copy as soon as it is transcribed. 

Mr. Cochrane. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Baker. Very good. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11 :25 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
adjourned.] 



7704 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Congre^2( of tlje Winitth States 



yo JACK CHBSTTIUT 



., (Erecting: 



^m^nmt to lawful authority, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to 
appear before the SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE OJV PRESIDEA'TIAL 

CAMPAIGir ACTIVITIES of the Senate of the United States, on 

April 11 , iP7. 4, at Meven o'clock „ A„. rn., 

at their committee room 3-3:^^i3.J^^..^J^^±S>tIl!k§..:^^2^^^^ , 

then and there to testify what you may know relative to the subject 
matters under consideration by said committee. 



IB^ereo! fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and pen- 
alties in such cases made and provided. 

To _4.^?wi^A..<-3 \mJ^vij:.]..t!Vi 

to serve and return. 

@iben under my hand, by order of the committee, this 

11th day of AB?il , in the year of our 

Lord one thousand nine hundred and^..?.Y.^rz1i^~.?.9}i.K. 



-^^r^ 



i^iiti Chair man, Senate Select Committee on Presidential 
Campaign Activities. 



7705 



CiA.r^:yl II ,197}.^ 

I made service of the within subpena 

hij \\A^A 



the within-Jiained 



^ O^J- 



<- 



c 




...r.i-.Jri. 


y.\. 


> 


at 


M t 


,0^^ S-^t/V' 


icXi 


d/. 


'(A, 




iMi 


:l..,„. 




/I 






'""D 



at iL±J...t::'.. o'clock ..H.. la., on 

the ,.1L.S1. daij 

of CifltLi .., 197^.i 



iSi<^ned 



U.S. covrKrjHEHT FiilNTlNC OFFICE 10 — 8:;CS2-1 



FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington^ D.G. 
The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 
4300, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, 
presiding. 
Present : Senator Inouye. 

Also present : Robert Muse, assistant majority counsel, and Donald 
G. Sanders, deputy minority counsel. 

Senator Inouye. Raise your right hand, sir. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ? 
Mr. Pepper. I do. 
Senator Inouye. Your name and address, sir. 

TESTIMONY OP GERALD R. PEPPER 

Mr. Pepper. Gerald R. Pepper, Ames, Iowa. 

Senator Inouye. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sanders. Thank you very much. Senator. 

[Whereupon, the Select Committee recessed briefly, to reconvene at 
10:15 a.m. in room G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building.] 

Mr. Sanders. Mr. Pepper, would you state your business association ? 

Mr. Pepper. I am executive director of the Iowa Institute of 
Cooperation. 

Mr. Sanders. And what is your business address ? 

Mr. Pepper. It is 63 Ninth Street, Ames, Iowa. 

Mr. Sanders. How long have you served as executive director? 

Mr. Pepper, Approximately 12 years. 

Mr. Sanders. So you were serving in that capacity in October of 
1971 and September of 1971 ? 

Mr. Pepper. That is correct. 

Mr. Sanders. Was there, on or about October 2, 1971, a function 
sponsored by the Iowa Institute of Cooperation in Ames? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes ; there was. 

Mr. Sanders. Would you describe that, please. "What was it? 

Mr. Pepper. The function was designed to promote an annual pro- 
motion. It was a rally. It was attended by somewhere between 7,000 
and 8,000 persons. It was held in the James Hilton Coliseum, which 
happened to be the first meeting of any function held in that building. 

The idea primarily was to focus attention of as many people as we 
could on agriculture and agriculturally related cooperatives. 

Mr. Sanders. The event, then, on October 2, was to highlight Iowa 
Cooperative Month? 

Mr. Pepper. That was the function ; that was the purpose. 

(7707) 



7708 

Mr. Sanders. Did you have an annual event of that nature ? 

Mr. Pepper. Not an annual event of that nature. We had an annual 
event called cooperative month, but never one of the magnitude that 
this turned out to be. In prior years, I might add, we always secured 
a proclamation from the Governor of the State. We always developed 
and sent to participating organizations advertisements, this type of 
thing, that they could use in highlighting the program statewide. 
Never, prior to this particular time, did we have a large meeting 
function of this type. 

Mr. Sanders. Wliat was the next previous statewide function spon- 
sored by the Iowa Institute ? 

Mr. Pepper. This would have been our own annual meeting, I sus- 
pect, that we have annually. It would have been the Tuesday before 
Thanksgiving of 1971. No, I guess that wouldn't be — well, it would 
be afterward. Other meetings would have been training programs for 
managers and directors of farmer cooperatives within the State. We 
do this every winter. 

Mr. Sanders. My question was, before October. 

Mr. Pepper. Well, this would be an annual thing. I suspect it would 
be the next statewide function, and we had conducted — now, we did 
have 

Mr. Sanders. Earlier in 1971 you had had some other statewide 
function ? 

Mr. Pepper. Well, I am not exactly sure I understand, but in our 
continuing program, annually we would have had in 1971, early, like 
in January, we would have had a series of meetings that we would 
have conducted throughout the State whose purpose was designed to 
provide training for managers and directors to better do their jobs. 
And this wo aid have been sometime in January of that year. 

Mr. Sanders. Does the Iowa Institute of Cooperation have member 
co-ops throughout the State ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes. Yes, we are composed of approximately 200 local 
farmer cooperatives, and all of the, nearly all of the regional-type 
farmer cooperatives that operate in the State, even though they may 
be headquartered outside of the State. 

Mr. Sanders. Is the institute funded or financed by means of con- 
tributions or assessments from each of these co-ops ? 

Mr. Pepper. We have called them mer bership dues, and they are 
based on gross volume of business, with minimums and maximums. 

Mr. Sanders. Are all of the co-ops related in one way or another 
to agriculture? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. How did the October 2 event originate ? 

Mr. Pepper. Well, the first thing that happened, I would suspect, 
is that sometime in the spring of the year I, as an annual affair, 
requested a proclamation from the Governor of the State to identify 
cooperative month in October. We had secured that commitment from 
the Governor and had developed materials for distribution to coopera- 
tives — copies of the proclamation, and newspaper advertisements, 
radio scripts, and all of this type of thing. 

And tney had in fact gone out to the membership, not only to the 
membership, but to all cooperatives, members and nonmembers alike, 
by September 1. 



7709 

At this point in time I thought it was probably all set from my stand- 
point, and we probably would not have done anything in advance. 

Now, on Labor Day of that 

Mr. Sanders. Let me interrupt you for a minute. 
Mr. Pepper. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. As executive director of the institute, were you also, 
then, immediately responsible for the management of this October 2 
event ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes. We have a person — this is a national event, and 
we coordinate with the national program. And this has been through 
evolvement over a number of years, and we have historically accepted 
the responsibility for the State of Iowa to do this. And because of my 
job, I am the one that does it. 

Mr. Sanders. Well, up to September of 1971, had you already 
planned and scheduled the program for the October 2 event? 
Mr. Pepper. No. 

Mr. Sanders. It was still an open matter as to what the program 

Mr. Pepper. There was never an intent at that point for there to be 
a program. No one was even cognizant that there was such a possibility. 
Mr. Sanders. Oh, are you saying that up until September there was 
no one event planned ? 

Mr. Pepper. There was no rally planned, as it turned out, no. 
Mr. Sanders. It was just to be a whole month of recognition of the 
cooperatives ? 

Mr. Pepper. Right, this is right. 

Mr. Sanders. Well, in previous years when you had a co-op month, 
was there some day during those months when there would be a 
rally? 

Mr. Pepper. No, not in Iowa. There had been in other States. But 
not in our State. 

Mr. Sanders. All right. Now, during the first part of September, 
did you receive any communication from Congressman Wilbur Mills ? 
Mr. Pepper. I did. 

Mr. Sanders. Could you explain how that occurred and when it was ? 
Mr. Pepper. It was on Labor Day of 1971. That is the reason I 
remember it specifically. I was at my home in Ames, and it seems to 
me it was some time shortly after lunch, but I am not quite sure of that. 
The telephone rang and I happened to be the one that was closest to it, 
and I picked it up. And there was a young lady's voice, and she said, 
"Mr. Pepper." And I said, "Yes." And she said, "One moment please 
for Congressman Wilbur Mills." 

And I thought to myself, surely somebody's playing a joke or some- 
thing of this kind. I picked up — or I waited." In a few moments a rather 
noted voice came on the line and he said, "Mr Pepper." And I said, 
"Yes." And he said, "This is Congressman Wilbur Mills from 
Arkansas." 

And I still thought somebody was proibably trying to pull my leg. 
However, I sad, "Yes, sir." And he said, "Mr. Pepper, we have power- 
ful problems in agriculture." And I responded, "Yes, this is true." And 
he made a few comments that would be vague at this point. 

But the next thing that I recall was that he said, "I wonder if you 
would do me a personal favor." And I asked him what the nature of 
it vras. And he said. "I wonder if you would rent the TTniversity of Iowa 
football stadium and fill it with farm people and give me an oppor- 



7710 

tunity to come out and meet with them." My response was, of course, 
that was kind of a large request, and I didn't really know, but indi- 
cated that there was a possibility that we might be able to put on some 
kind of a function, and I would have to explore that possibility and 
think it through. 

And he invited me to call him back at his apartment on the following 
night, which I believe was a Tuesday. After I sat back and thought this 
thing over rather carefully, I wondered just exactly what we could 
do, and I visited various and sundry friends in our area to deter- 
mine whether or not this was a feasible project for us. 

And the more I thought about it, the more I thought that, well, this 
is co-op month. Here is a tremendous opportunity to focus attention on 
this program. And so I called the Congressman back at his apartment 
the following evening, Tuesday, and I told him what I felt that we 
could do. I stated it this way : 

I indicated to the Congressman that, first of all, any program that 
the institute was involved in had to be bipartisan. The reason for 
this was that the institute is composed of cooperatives that are com- 
posed of farmers who are from all political parties. As a result of 
this, we have not participated in any partisan activity, nor would we 
dare. I would be chastised by my board of directors. I would not be 
able to respond effectively to the membership. And so that was the first 
requirement. 

The Congressman indicated, "by all means." Those were his words. 

The second thing that I said was that the meeting could not be 
held at the University of Iowa football stadium for a number of 
reasons, but if we needed any particular reason, it could rain that 
day and that would be a terrible situation, to have all those people in 
that rainy atmosphere and so forth. And I didn't like that. And I 
did propose the opportunity to perhaps be the first group to meet 
in the new Hilton Coliseum, which would hold about 15,000 people, 
if we were able to turn them out — this was agreeable. 

The third thing that I insisted on was that I would have the final 
say as to program, that I would be accountable for it, and from my 
standpoint I had to have the final veto of any promotion, project, or 
anything that might eventually reflect upon our organization. 

That was agreeable. He thanked me and indicated that "someone" 
would be in touch with me. He didn't really identify the "someone," 
nor who the "someone" represented. 

That is how it started. 

Mr. Sanders. At that point, the date of October 2 had not yet been 
selected ? 

Mr. Pepper. That's right. 

Mr. Sanders. When was that chosen ? 

Mr. Pepper. I am not sure that I can recall specifically. I do know 
that there was some question about Avhat date the coliseum would be 
opened or would be available, and they were pressing for a deadline. 
I'm not really sure I can recall. 

Mr. Sanders. Subsequent to the second telephone conversation with 
Congressman Mills, were you contacted by anyone representing them- 
selves as acting on his behalf ? 

Mr. Pepper, Yes. I received a call from Joe Johnson, Joseph P. 
Johnson, who was traveling in our State, or seemed to be, and agreed 
to meet with him and visit about the proposal and the plan. 



7711 

Mr. Sanders. He called, you ? 

Mr. Pepper. He called me, yes. We agreed to meet and did. 

Mr. Sanders. Did he make reference to the contact by Congressman 
Mills? 

Mr. Pepper. No. No ; I don't believe so. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you remember how he initiated the conversation ? 

Mr. Pepper. He introduced himself. 

Mr. Sanders. You had not known him previously ? 

Mr. Pepper. No; I had never seen him nor known the name. And. 
the telephone call, it seems he said — he introduced himself on the tele- 
phone and indicated that he was to get in touch w^ith me to discuss 
the co-op rally event. And his identification was as a representative of 
Associated Milk Producers. 

Mr. Sanders. All right. Then did you meet with him ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes ; we met and we talked over the same things that 
I had told Congressman Mills, what I w^ould insist upon if the pro- 
gram were to be conducted. And at this point he advised me that I 
didn't have to worry about money. Nobody had ever told me that 
before, because you know, in our kind of operation you had to worr}' 
about the income as well as the expense. But he indicated my responsi- 
bility would be released to spend my time on developing the program, 
the promotion that went with it, and that he would be — the matter of 
jfinancial arrangements would be his obligation. 

Mr. Sanders. Was this within a few days following your phone 
conversation with Congressman Mills? 

Mr. Pepper. This was on Wednesday, this was the following day 
that I called back — in the morning. 

Mr. Sanders. In other words, Johnson contacted you a day after 
your second conversation with Congressman Mills? 

Mr. Pepper. That's right. 

Mr. Sanders. Did Johnson discuss with you the matter of a formal 
invitation to Congressman Mills? 

Mr. Pr^ppER. He did not say anything at that time about it. 

Mr. Sanders. Did he subsequently ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes. In the afternoon he called me back. I am a little 
vague if it was Wednesday afternoon or early Thursday morning. But 
I'm quite sure it was Wednesday afternoon. And he called me back 
from Des Moines. I believe, and asked me if I could be in Washington 
at 10 o'clock Friday morning. And my response was, "No; I can't be, 
because I have scheduled a meeting with my executive board of di- 
rectors in Ames for Friday." 

And his response was,* "Well, would you — is it possible that your 
board could meet on the plane going to Washington?" And that was 
kind of a shock, and I indicated that I didn't know for sure, but I 
thought it might be appealing to the board. And as a consequence, I 
said, "I will check it out and let you know." 

And so I did. I called every member of the board of directors, and 
they agreed that they would do this. I assumed that we would be on a 
commercial flight. I did not know what it would be. But on the call 
back to him, I told him that the board was meeting. 

He said, "Have them at the airport at Des Moines at 8 o'clock on 
Friday morning." OK, so we contacted all of our directors, all execu- 
tive board members. They all met at the airport about 7 : 45. And we 



7712 

were taken across to the private hangars, and there were two air- 
planes. There was a Jet Commander and there was a I^arjet, and 
we were put aboard the two planes, and approximately an hour later 
we were in Washington. 

Mr. Sanders. When you first met with Johnson on Wednesday, did 
he talk with you about the appearance of Congressman Mills at the 
rally ? Did the two of you discuss 

Mr. Pepper. I think he must have. AVe must have discussed it, be- 
cause my only contact at this point had been with the Congressman, 
and I'm sure we did. 

Mr. Sanders. So would the two of you have discussed Congress- 
man Mills' call to you and his interest in talking to the Iowa farmers ? 

Mr. Pepper. I'm sure that I must have talked about this, because 
there was no other reason for conversation. This was the only thing 
that had occurred. 

Mr. Sanders. When Johnson called you back later, on Wednesday, 
did he then ask you if you could go to Washington? Did he tell you 
why he wanted you to go to Washington ? 

Mr. Pepper. No ; he didn't. He didn't tell me why. I think he may 
have said that — I think maybe he said to meet the Congressman, and 
that was about it. 

Mr. Sanders. You surely wouldn't pack up your whole board and 
carry them into Washington without having some idea of why you 
were coming to Washington. 

Mr. Pepper. Well, generally speaking ; no. But the idea, I'm sure, 
was that here would be an opportunity for our people to meet the 
Congressman himself, and the Congressman's prestige, particularly 
at that time, was running pretty high. And to have a board meeting en 
route, or in Washington, seemed like a fun thing to do, you know. I 
mean, if somebody else is going to pay the bill, why, that is great. 
I'd like to go for a ride. 

Mr. Sanders. What happened when you arrived in Washington ? 

Mr. Pepper. I should indicate that en route to Washington, John- 
son told me that I would be expected to make an invitation. I didn't 
exactly know anything beyond that. But he just Avanted to know if I 
needed to have it typed out or written out or anything of this kind. 

I wasn't quite sure what he was talking about, and I said, "You 
mean you just want me to issue an invitation to the Congressman for 
this event?" He said, "Yes." And well, it seemed a little strange, but 
what the heck, the whole thing was strange. So I agreed to do this. 

Mr. Sanders You didn't prepare anything in writing? 

Mr. Pepper. Oh, no. No; it wasn't necessary. I think I know how to 
issue an invitation when it comes to something like that. 

And so we landed at, I think it's called Page Airport. And we were 
met by three taxicabs. We were loaded aboard these cabs. And to this 
day I don't know the names of the buildings, except it's where the 
House Ways and Means Committee hearing room is. I don't recall 
for sure what that building's name it. We were ushered in. and taken 
in eventually, after a period of waiting, to the House Ways and Means 
Committee hearing i-oom. And in tlio room there were a large number 
of people, and nobody indicated prior to this that there would be any- 
one there except the Congressman. 



7713 

I have met a few Concrressmen in my life, and I just figured we'd go 
into his office and shake hands and liowdy a bit and that's it. But this 
was different. There w^ere a large number of people there, and the 
meeting appeared to be under the control of David Parr. He was tlje 
one who made the introductory statements. We were lined up as we 
entered the room. The Congressman came in, in a little bit, and he met 
each of my directoi's, and shook their hands. 

I was the last one. and introduced myself to him. And then there 
was a series of chairs set up and I was a pretty good-sized fellow, and 
the Congressman made a very particular point of getting a very 
large chair and bringing it up and setting it near the end next to me. 
And then he took a very small chair and sat right beside me. And 
this made me uncomfortable, because at this point I felt that I was not 
at home in this kind of a situation, and I didn't quite understand what 
was going on. 

After Mr. Parr started his remarks and they identified some of the 
people in the audience— and most of those that I recall identified, 
Avere people from the dairy industry — as soon as our discussion started, 
alongside me on this side were other people, presidents of farm co-ops 
and that type of thing. And he was over here, and as soon as the meet- 
ing started, then he conveniently lifted his chair and set it over so 
that he would be at flank to the group. 

And then it became more obvious to me that there was some staging 
involved in all of this, and this bothered me a great deal. Mr. Parr 
introduced me and I offered my invitation. The Congressman re- 
sponded and accepted the invitation. And after all of this was done 
and everybody was invited to go around shaking hands with the Con- 
gressman and they took his picture and identification, name, and all 
of this business — local newspapers, I guess, and all of that — this fur- 
ther bothered me. and it perhaps could have bothered some of my di- 
rectors because they were unfamiliar with this entire setting. As soon 
as the pictures were taken and all of this business, my board and I 
went to lunch in the building and we held a brief board meeting in 
the "Ways and Means Committee meeting room. And then we were back 
in Des Moines by 3 :30. 

Mr. Saxders. This occurred on the first Friday following Labor Day 
in September 1971 ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders Approximately how many directors did you bring to 
Washington ? 

Mr. Pepper. Exactly 10. 

Mr. Sanders. You have just now told us that in this House Ways and 
Means Committee hearing room you issued an invitation to Congress- 
man Mills — would you be more specific in that respect ? 

Mr. Pepper. I probably said something to this effect, that — this is 
hard to recall here, but t would have said — "On behalf of the Iowa 
Institute of Cooperation, the farmer members in our State would like 
to extend to you an invitation to participate in our cooperative month 
rally October 2." That's about what I would have said. 

Mr. Sanders. The date had already been chosen by that time ? 

Mr. Pepper. Again, I'm not positive. But I doubt if it had. It may 
have been a little more vague than that, because this was very early in 
the event. 



7714 

Mr. Sanders. Now, there have been some Associated Press news ac- 
counts of recent months in which it has been stated that a spokesman of 
Congressman Mills said he received an unsolicited invitation to speak 
at that event. The facts you've just related to us would seem to indicate 
that the remark of Congressman Mills' spokesman is not correct. Is 
that true ? 

Mr. Pepper. The remarks of Congressman Mills' spokesman, as far 
as I'm concerned, is absolutely incorrect. And I think that you will find 
there later on, in some news releases, there was a concession on behalf 
of the Congressman that he may have made the call. 

Mr. Sanders. I might mention for the record that I am looking 
specifically at an AP story appearing on March 25, 1974, in the Des 
Moines Tribune. 

While you were in Washington on that occasion, did you meet Gene 
Goss, administrative assistant to Congressman Mills? 

Mr. Pepper. I do not know. A number of people were introduced 
rapidly and with only a few exceptions can I recall their names. 

Mr. Sanders. Yes; there is another account in that Des Moines 
Tribune, March 30, 1974, in which Mr. Goss is quoted as saying, "Mr. 
Mills does not specifically recall a conversation with Mr. Pepper, but 
concedes the possibility it took place." 

Mr. Muse. May I look at those, Don ? 

Mr. Sanders. I'm going to keep referring to these. I'll let you see this 
whole package and give you a chance to question when I get through. 

Mr. Muse. All right, good. Thank you. 

Mr. Sanders. Did Johnson subsequently come to Ames and provide 
services for the event to be held on October 2 ? 

Mr. Pepper. Johnson came to Ames and he brought a large delega- 
tion of people who were identified as staff members of Associated Milk 
Producers. At different times there were different numbers there. 

He established a bank account in an Ames bank, the same bank with 
whom we have our general account in, and made whatever deposits he 
had for the finances of the function. I had one check that came in my 
mail that I turned over to him, and to the best of my recollection, that 
was a $15,000 check from Mid- America Dairymen, made payable to 
the Iowa Cooperative Month rally, and that was the name of the 
account, the "Iowa Cooperative Month." 

He brought the staff people in. They were very knowledgeable peo- 
ple. They proceeded on promotional efforts, basic organization, and 
this type of thing. And even at this point I was insisting that every- 
thing that was to be done was to have my approval in regard to the 
program aspects. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you recall the names of any other AMPI personnel 
accompanying Johnson ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes; Forest Wisdom was among them. John Holmes 
was with them. I should have brought some notes. 

Mr. Sanders. Tom Townsend ? 

Mr. Pepper. Tom Townsend was with them ; right. 

Mr. Sanders. Terry Shea ? 

Mr. Pepper. Terry Shea, right. Mis. — a lady. 

Mr. Sanders. Clement? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes, Betty Clement ; right. She appeared to be in charge 
of the clerical staff in the operation. They installed — we have a fairly 



7715 

large board of directors room that we also use for meetings — they in- 
stalled a number of telephones and their own telephone setup back in 
there. 

Mr. Sanders. You provided office space to them within your own 
quai-ters ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. Did they have, to your knowledge, any independent 
office space? 

Mr. Pepper. It appeared, as the thing progressed, that they were 
also using the Holiday Inn as kind of a central headquarters. 

Mr. Sanders. Could you give an estimate of the total number of 
AMPI personnel, the average number on the scene during September 
in preparing for October 2 ? 

Mr. Pepper. Well, that is rather difficult. I would suppose that there 
were always half a dozen around, and a high of maybe 15 to 20 some- 
times. 

Mr. Sanders. At what bank was the account located ? 

Mr. Pepper. First National Bank in Ames. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you know under what name it Avas carried? 

Mr. Pepper. Iowa Coopei'ative ^Nfoiith. 

Mr. Sanders. Who had the power to draw on that account? 

Mr. Pepper. Joe Johnson. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you ? 

Mr. Pepper. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Did anyone with the Iowa Institute of Cooperation? 

Mr. Pepper. No; no one other than Joe Johnson, as far as I krtow, 
and I'm quite sure of this because I have in our safety deposit box the 
statements and all the canceled checks that were written on the ac- 
count. And the reason that I have tliem is, first of all, our address was 
given as the address for the statements to be sent from the bank. Also, 
I had the opportunity to review the checks, and at the end of the rally 
in 1971 and after everything had been paid, I had been keeping — 
Johnson had given me copies of every invoice that was paid. I still 
have those. 

At the end of that time, all of the money was dissipated with the 
exception of $1,000 and, I think, 97 cents. At that period of time, the 
bank accoimt was still there, and we were still getting the statements. 
And I kept my eye on it because I thought, OK, this money was given 
by somebody to promote Iowa Cooperative Month, and I thought it 
would be a gross error if somebody were able to close that account 
out. So I advised the bank that I would like to know in the event that 
someone had intended to do that. 

Then not, probably not over — it would have been in — our fiscal 
year ends May 31, and I would suspect it would have been during the 
month of May, 2 years ago, that this money was still there. And I 
wrote Associated Milk Producers and suggested that the account was 
still there, and that they ouffht to, if they had not other disposition, I 
would like to have it turned over to the Iowa Institute. 

I got a letter back from them indicating that they would consider 
this possibility, and a tele])hone call — and apparently they were having 
some difficulty. They said it was all right with them, but they were 
having a little bit of difficidty with Johnson writing the check to 
close the account ov.t. I didn't quite understand how all that could be, 
but I didn't do too much. 



7716 

And then I called back to talk to Mehren, George Mehren, who is 
the general manager now of Associated Milk Producers, and asked him 
if I could have authorization to close out the account, because John- 
son had been an employee at the time the account was established. 
And they sent me a letter giving me that authority. 

I took it to the bank. We closed out the account. We put the $1,000.97 
into the institute's account, and gave the bank a copy of the letter, 
and also advised the bank if there should be any problem in the future, 
the institute would reimburse the bank if they were in any trouble. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you at any time make any deposits to that 
account ? 

Mr. Pepper. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Are you cognizant of the total amount of money de- 
posited to that account ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes ; I am, at least as far as I made some calculations 
based on the deposits that were made and totaled them, and I don't 
have that figure with me. 

Mr. Sanders. Is that in the vicinity of $30,000 ? 

Mr. Pepper. I think it was in excess of that. I think it was closer 
to $38,000 or $39,000. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you know who provided those funds ? 

You've already mentioned a $15,000 check. 

Mr. Pepper. The only one that I knew for positive was the amount 
that was deposited by the check that I inadvertently received. I had to 
make the assumption that the rest of it was from Associated Milk 
Producers. But I have no verification of that. 

Mr. Sanders. You say you have all the bank records from that ac- 
count ? Do the deposit slips not disclose the 

Mr. Pepper. I have the checks and the statements, but no deposit 
slips. And the only hope that I could have of ascertaining that 
would be if the bank should have microfilmed deposit slips, and they 
might have. 

Mr. Sanders. Did Johnson ever reveal to you that AMPI was pay- 
ing the expenses ? 

Mr. Pepper. I don't think in so many words. It just seemed to me 
that was the way it was. 

Mr. Sanders. He had told you that you needn't be concerned about 
the expense ? 

Mr. Pepper. He had told me I needn't be concerned. He represented 
AMPI, and I guess two and two made four as far as I was concerned. 

Mr. Sanders. As you received bills for expenditures in connection 
with the rally, then. I presume you forwarded them to Johnson for 
payment ? 

Mr. Pepper. I just handed them to him. We were in the same office 
part of the time. 

Mr. Sanders. Were rally expenses incurred which were paid by re- 
sources other than from that bank accoimt ? 

Mr. Pepper. There may have been some minor ones that I paid and 
they reimbursed me for them. But there wouldn't have been anything 
extensive. 

Mr. Sanders. Substantially, that bank account, then covered the 
total expenses of the rally ? 



7717 

Mr. Pepper. Of the rally itself ; yes. I did not determine any place in 
the checks, though, that I reviewed where it would have covered any- 
thing like the cost of the airplanes, the jets, or anything — and there 
Avere some other expenditures that they made for me somewhere along 
the line, because in several instances I was provided with a small plane 
to get around the State of Iowa, so that I could conserve my time. Well, 
there was one bill in there paid to an air company, as I recall, a charter 
service. It didn't look like it was the same. It was payment for the 
planes that were used on my behalf. 

Mr. Sanders. Did Johnson make provision for you to make flights 
around the State of Iowa? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. By that I mean, it w as Johnson was arranging for the 
financial costs of those ? 

Mr. Pepper. He was arranging for the financial costs. All he would 
tell me was that — I would indicate usually considerably in advance 
that — I have got to be at this town at 6 o'clock on this evening. And 
he would identify the aircraft for me and tell me where it would be at 
the Ames airport, and usually what the pilot's name was. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have any knowledge that any of your member 
co-ops made contributions or were assessed for the expenses of this 
rally? 

Mr. Pepper. I don't think any of our member associations were 
assessed for any expenses of the rally. They did help them in mailing 
lists and in sending out perhaps some of the promotional materials to 
farmers. They would be the only ones in a position to know who those 
people were. 

Mr. Sanders. Is AMPI a member of your institute ? 

Mr. Pepper. They are not. They perhaps did have a couple of local 
membere of theirs who are members of ours. However, AMPI was 
not, had not been, and is not a member of the organization. 

Mr. Sanders. How long after October 2 did AMPI personnel remain 
on the scene ? 

Mr. Pepper. We closed up, in the words of Johnson, like a circus 
tent. As a matter of fact, I don't think they were — I know as a matter 
of fact, most of their staff members went on to "Wisconsin that night 
for another meeting with Congressman Mills. Some of them, I think, 
went aboard the same aircraft. 

Mr. Sanders. Did Congressman Mills speak to the rally ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you have any conversations with Congressman 
]\Iills concerning the agreement or arrangements by which he came to 
Iowa, other than what you have already told us? 

Mr. Pepper. None that I am aware of. The only additional corre- 
spondence was that after the meeting was over I wrote him a letter of 
thanks, appreciation, and mentioned in that letter that I thought 
that we had achieved certain aspects, such as focusing the attention of 
a lot of people on agriculture and its problems. 

Mr. Sanders. Early in 1974, did you complain that it appeared that 
the cooperatives in Iowa had been used by the Wilbur Mills campaign 
or personnel ? 

My. Pepper, Early in 1974, I voiced agreement with the Governor 
of the State when he indicated that cooperatives had been used. I did 



7718 

not identify, if I am correct, I am quite sure I did not identify that 
the Congressman had used us. The Governor came out — I would like 
to review, if I may, exactly how all this publicitj^ started. 

Mr. Sanders. I wanted to develop that, so go right ahead. 

Mr. Pepper. This will bring you up, I think, as to why I was irri- 
tated at all. 

Some time, I think it was in January, I was on a series of meetings 
around the State and I had a telephone call from a man by the name 
of Beauford who said he represented the Wright law firm in Little 
Rock, Ark. He indicated to me that their firm had been commissioned 
to conduct an internal audit of AMPI's money, and they were trying 
to determine what happened to the money between 1969 and 1971. 

I asked him, I said, "How do I know you are who you say you are?" 
And he kind of stuttered and stammered a bit. And I asked him for 
his telephone number, and I said, "I will call you back if this appears 
to be legitimate." 

I called Dr. George Mehren, who is now general manager of the 
Associated Milk Producers and I said, "Is this a legitimate request?" 
And he said, "Yes, I hope you will cooperate with the attorney." 

So I called the attorney back and he asked me many, many ques- 
tions about what had transpired with the rally situation. And I told 
him everything that I knew. 

Subsequent to that I got a call one morning, on Friday — I think it 
was March 22, because I had a meeting scheduled that evening with 
one of our Congressmen — and it was from Brooks Jackson, Associated 
Press. And he said he had written an extensive story based on a court 
report, and he had quoted me in it. And this came as rather a shock 
because I wasn't even aware that the internal audit that had been 
commissioned by the board of directors of AMPI had been turned over 
to a court. No one advised me of this. So this came as a shock. 

And so I asked him to review the quotes, and he did. And that was 
tne purpose of his call. And with one exception they were accurate, 
and I said they were accurate. And so the following Monday a story 
came out in the Des Moines Register or Tribune, one or the other, 
and the immediate publicity was kind of heavy where all of these 
things that he had written had come out. 

I had no problem, with one exception, because everything was ac- 
curate as far as I could tell. And that exception was that the Congress- 
man's spokesman had been quoted that he denied making the tele- 
phone call. Now, it appeared to me that there were about four possi- 
bilities. Either Pepper was a liar. Mills was a liar, Mills' spokesman 
was a liar, or Mills' spokesman had the wrong information. 

So this did irritate me greatly. I didn't like that kind of publicity. 

On Tuesday the Governor of the State in a press meeting released his 
commentary that cooperatives had been used. Well, having reviewed 
from the news media everything that had happened with AMPI, it 
was obvious that we had been used, and I felt that we had. 

I also felt a tremendous responsibility to the Governor, who is a 
Republican; to Senator Jack Miller, who was a Republican at the 
time ; to Senator — Congressman Smith, who had been on our platform ; 
to imiversity president, Robert Parks, who had appeared on our pro- 
gram. And I felt that if I had misled the Governor in this instance I 
had also misled these other people. And so I had two motives in writing 



7719 

the letter to the Governor, first to express a sincere apology and second 
to put some words in there that some good reporter might pick up 
and say, "Hey, what did you mean by this," so I would have an oppor- 
tunity to get my story before the press. And that was the two purposes 
of the letter. 

The letter went to the Governor and an astute reporter in Des 
Moines picked up the phraseology and asked me what I meant by it, 
and I had the opportunity to tell him what I meant by it and the 
opportunity, hopefully publicly, to justify our arguments. 

Mr. Sanders. I will show you what I am marking as exhibit No. 1 to 
this hearing and ask if you recognize it. 

["Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Pepper exhibit 
No. 1 for identification.^] 

Mr. Pepper. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. What is it? 

Mr. Pepper. This is the letter I wrote to the Governor of the State, 
a letter of apology. 

Mr. Sanders. Dated March 26, 1974. 

Mr. Pepper. Correct. 

Mr. Sanders. Have you since that time had any communication 
from or with Congressman Mills' office ? 

Mr. Pepper. No. 

Mr. Sanders. During the month of September 1971, did you discern 
any effort on the part of anyone to use the rally as a political forum 
for Congressman Mills ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes ; on a couple of occasions — pretty hard to identify. 
But the attitude of a few of the individuals was particularly pro- 
Mills. Well, I mean there are pro-Mills people who are pro-Nixon 
and all this type of thing. However, the one thing that did disturb 
me that did occur is that a letter was sent by a man by the name of 
Harry Oswald, who represented the Arkansas Rural Electric State 
Association, to the rural electric cooperative managers in our State, 
and this letter indicated his strong support for the Congressman, and 
appeared to attempt to encourage Iowa rural electric co-op managers 
to be strong; Mills supporters. And he included in his letter a copv of 
a draft Mills label. 

And when I learned of this information I immediately sent a let- 
ter of my own to the rural electric cooperative managers that I knew 
received it asking them to disregard it and maintain the thrust of the 
meeting as we had planned it in its initial stages. 

Mr. Sanders. "NYhat did Mr. Osw aid want the Iowa rural electric 
co-op managers to do ? 

Mr. Pepper. I don't really know. It would be a little difficult for me 
to determine what his motives were. 

Mr. Sanders. Well, what I mean is, was it explicit in his letter what 
he wanted them to do ? 

Mr. Pepper. May I see it ? 

Mr. Sanders. Let me mark this exhibit No. 2, and I will hand, this 
to you for identification. 

[Whereupon, the document referred to was marked Pepper exhibit 
No. 2 for identification.^] 



1 See p. 7726. 
= See p. 7727. 



7720 

Mr. Pepper. I would suspect that he was soliciting support for the 
Congressman to be an active Presidential candidate. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you recognize the exhibit No. 2? Have you seen it 
previously ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes ; yes. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you at some point come into possession of a copy 
of this document ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes ; a copy was sent to my office by one of the rural 
electric managers. And after I saw the copy I was quite concerned and 
wrote my letter to the same people asking them to disregard it. 

Mr. Sanders. And you are referring to this letter of September 14, 
1971, from Hariy L. Oswald to Mr. Roger Peterson, manager of But- 
ler County Rural Electric Cooperative ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. Was it Mr. Peterson who sent the copy to you ? 

Mr. Pepper. I'm not sure. I assumed that it was, but I don't know 
that. 

Mr. Sanders. Will you look at the attachment to exhibit No. 2 and 
identify it, please? 

Mr. iPEPPER. Well, the attachment was the label that was sent to the 
Rural Electric Cooperatives in the letter by Mr. Oswald. It is a Draft 
Mills for President label. 

Mr. Sanders. This came to you Avith the letter — the attachment came 
to you ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes ; the Xerox of the label came with the letter. 

Mr. Sanders. Would it appear to you from this letter that Mr. 
Oswald wanted his Rural Electrical Cooperative managere, directors, 
and employees, to appear at the rally wearing the Mills for President 
identifications ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes ; I think I would agi-ee that that is what he said. 

Mr. Sanders. I'm going to mark as exhibit No. 3 a memorandum of 
September 18, 1971, from Gerald Pepper to REC managers. 

Can you identify that document ? 

[Whereupon, the dociunent referred to was marked Pepper exhibit 
No. 3 for identification.*] 

Mr. Pepper. Yes; this is the memo that I sent to these people in 
regard to persuading them to forget the Oswald letter, and concen- 
trate on the intent oJf the program that we had originally established. 

I might add that that was simply consistent with the original policj' 
of keeping the program a bipartisan event. 

Mr. Sanders. Subsequent to Joe Johnson's departure from Ames, 
right after the rally, since that time have you had any conversations 
with him concerning the event ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes; very brief ones in regard to bills that had not 
been paid. That was about it. Immediately within a couple of weeks, 
why. bills had come in. and I forwarded the bills to him in Washing- 
ton. There was a Washington address, as I recall, and we might have 
talked about one or two of tlie bills that had come in. But that was 
the only conversation. 

Mr. Sanders. Did it appear to you that your effort to keep the rally 
from becoming a partisan event for Mills had any success? 

* See p. 7729. 



7721 

Mr. Pepper. Yes ; I think it was successful in this regard. Until all 
of this other information came out — Associated Milk Producers pub- 
licity and so forth — I thought we had kept the thing pretty much on 
a bipartisan line, and I thought that it was a good event. 

I was really a little shaken after all of these other things came out. 
I felt it was successful. It was a beautiful day in October and many 
of our farmers were in the field, and we still got between, around 7,000 
people, and I thought that was a success. 

Mr. Saxders. The Des Moines Tribune news account of March 25, 
1974, to which I previously made reference, also says this, quote : "But 
the sponsoring group's executive director, Gerald R. Pepper, of the 
Iowa Institute of Cooperation, said Mills appeared to be testing the 
water for a possible Presidential run." 

Is that an accurate quotation of what you have said ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes ; I think it is an accurate — I know it's an accurate 
quotation. I did say that. And the only logic for having said it was 
simply one of sixth sense as to the things that were going on, the con- 
versation and the news at the time. There is nothing to document that 
statement from my standpoint. I guess it was simply an opinion, really, 
more than anything else. 

But I did say it, I didn't know he was going to print it. But I did 
say it. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you have personal conversation with Governor 
Ray concerning the event ? 

Mr. Pepper. Prior to it ? 

Mr. Sanders. No ; prior to 1974. 

Mr. Pepper. No ; I talked to one of Governor Ray's administrative 
assistants. 

Mr. Sanders. Governor Ray is quoted in the Des Moines Register of 
March 25 as saying that: "Iowa faim cooperatives apparently were 
used in setting up what amounted to a Presidential campaign appear- 
ance by Representative Wilbur Mills in 1971." 

Do you have any knowledge that he did in fact say that? 

Mr. Pepper. Could I prove that — no; I read it in the papers like 
everybody else did. 

Mr. Sanders. Did Governor Ray's aide say something to that effect 
to you ? 

INIr. Pepper. I called Governor Ray's aide after this came out and 
I asked him if a letter of apologj' would be appropriate. He indicated 
that it would be. And I have no reason to doubt that the Governor 
said that. 

INIr. Sanders. Did you provide any information to the person or 
persons who spoke with you in connection with the investigation 
of the Wright law firm doing the audit for AMPI ? 

ISIr. Pepper. Would you restate that for me ? 

Mr. Sanders. In talking with the person or persons from the 
Wright law firm 

Mr. Pepper. Mr. Beauford ; yes. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you provide to them, any information concern- 
ing this event which you have not told us today ? 

Mr. Pepper. No. Well, I don't think so. 

Mr. Sanders. No information of substance or significance 2 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 - 13 



7722 

Mr. Pepper. Not that I can recall. Certainly not that isn't in all 
those documents that you have. 

Mr. Sanders. I will show you what I have marked exhibit No. 4 for 
identification. 

["Wliereiipon, the document referred to was marked Pepper exhibit 
No. 4 for identification.*] 

Mr. Sanders. Off the record. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr, Sanders. Back on the record. 

I show you what I have marked as exhibit No. 4 and ask if you 
can identify that for the record ? 

Mr. Pepper. This is an advertisement that was placed in a num- 
ber of papers in the State of Iowa. I believe this specific one was 
placed in the Ames Tribune prior to the meeting announcing the 
kickoff activities. 

Mr. Sanders. Let's go off the record. 

[Discussion oft' the record.] 

INIr. Sanders. Back on the record. 

T want to refer Mr. Pepper to the report of Wright, Lindsay and 
Jennings to AMPI, dated March 13, 1974, pages 119, 120, and 121, 
and I want to ask you just a couple of questions about some remarks 
that were attributed to you. First, on page 120 it is said that you 
told the Wright firm that "a few weeks after his conversation with 
Congressman Mills. Mr. Joe P. Johnson of AMPI contacted him 
about the rally." 

Mr. Pepper. That's right — that's incorrect. 

Mr. Sanders. As you told us today, it was a day 

Mr. Pepper. Yes ; the following day. 

Mr. Sanders. Second, the Wright report says that at the law firm's 
request you reviewed the bank statements and checks for the rally 
account and advised that they reflected a total of $38,319 deposited 
to the accomit. Does that seem to you now to be approximately 
correct ? 

Mr. Pepper. I reviewed the bank statement for them. I did not re\'iew 
the checks for them, and I think the bank statement is accurate. 

Mr. Sanders. In other words, you totaled up the deposits from the 
bank statements ? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes. But I did not review the bank checks for them. I 
reviewed them for myself. 

Mr. Sanders. I have no further questions. 

Mr. ]\IusE. One second, please. Could Ave go off the record just 
briefly? 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Muse. JNIr. Pepper, I hope you will excuse me if I am some- 
what repetitive. I came in a little bit late. I didn't hear all of the 
questions. 

Mr. Pepper. You are excused. 

Mr. ]\Itjse. When you had the conversations, the telephone conversa- 
tions with Congressman Mills 

Mr. Pepper. The first one? 

Mr. Muse. The September, Labor Day call. 

Mr. Pepper. OK. 

♦ See p. 7730. 



7723 

Mr. Muse. Did he discuss his candidacy with you at all ? 

Mr. Pepper. No. 

Mr. Muse. In any conversation did he discuss his possible candidacy ? 

Mr. Pepper. He did not. 

Mr, Muse. In fact, at that time, to your knowledge, had he declared 
himself a candidate? 

Mr. Pepper. I don't know, not to me. 

Mr. Muse. All right. Did you discuss with any of his aides his 
possible candidacy ? 

Mr. Pepper. I think it was general conversation at different periods 
of time, but in no hard, no real specific cases. But I do remember hear- 
ing i:>pople talking about it. 

Mr. INI USE. And when you flew on the plane with the other board of 
directors, was there discussion about Mills' possible candidacy? 

Mr. Pepper. I think there was some speculation. 

Mr. Muse. And was there any discussion about an invitation being 
extended to him? To come out at that point? You were the onljt:; — 

Mr. Pepper. No : only between Joe Johnson and myself. 

Mr. Muse. So the other board members did not have any knowledge 
of the invitation being extended ? 

Mr. Pepper. They did not. 

Mr. Muse. And when you extended the invitation, did you discuss 
the candidacy with Congressman Mills ? 

Mr. Pepper. No. 

Mr. iNIusE. And when he appeared at the rally, was there any dis- 
cussion of his candidacy ? 

Mr. Pepper. By whom ? 

Mr. Muse. By — well first, did he make any pitches in his speech? 

Mr. Pepper. No ; not that I am aware of. 

Mr. Muse. Did any of his aides make pitches to anyone that you are 
aware of at that time ? 

Mr. Pepper. No. 

Mr. INIusE. And in fact, I think you described the rally itself as 
turning out to be bipartisan in effect? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes ; because we insisted that it be so. 

Mr. Mi'SE. And other than the letter from the electrical workers — 
the electrical co-op, Avhicli was exhibit No. 2, did you have any indi- 
cation that this was an attempt to move Congressman Mills' can- 
didacy ? 

Mr. Pepper. Only the enthusiasm of some of the staff people who 
Avere present. It was obvious who they were for. 

Mr. Muse. Whose staff people were those? 

Mr. Pepper. I think Johnny Holmes particularly appeared to be a 
real pro-lNIills man. and I think there were probably a couple of others 
that were very, very much in favor of the Congressman and would 
have liked to have seen him run. But as far as anything organized, this 
would just be like discussion among people considering political 
affairs. 

Mr. INIusE. Would it be much different from any two citizens having 
a general discussion about a possible candidate? 

Mr. Pepper. No; they were enthusiastic about their support about 
someone. No ; it Avouldn't be any different from that. 



7724 

Mr. Muse. Now, in regard to this letter which is exhibit No. 2, from 
Harry Oswald to Roger Peterson, who was Avith the Iowa Electrical 
Cooperative, did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Oswald about 
their efforts to generate activity for Congressman Mills? 

Mr. Pepper. No. 

Mr. Muse. And did you have any discussion with Roger Peterson ? 

Mr. Pepper. No. 

Tklr. Muse. So tlie only knowledge you would have had about their 
attempts would have been this general letter? 

Mr. Pepper. Right. 

Mr. Muse. And with regard to the campaign poster or campaign 
bill 

Mr. Pepper. Label, I call it. 

Mr. Muse [continuing]. Label that is appended to the letter, did 
you have any discussion with any of the people who sent it out? 

Mr. Pepper. No. 

Mr. Muse. And do you know exactly who was sponsoring this, other 
than the fact it was appended to the letter ? 

Mr. Pepper. No. 

Mr. Muse. Did you have any knowledge that anything, that there 
was any effort by the electrical co-op and AMPI to jointly use this 
rally as an effort to move Congressman Mills' candidacy ? 

Mr. Pepper. Would you restate that ? 

^Ir. INIusE. Do you have any knowledge that there was any joint 
effort by the electrical co-op and AMPI to jointly sponsor or jointly 
move Congressman Mills' campaign effort? 

^fr. Pepper. I certainly didn't at that time. Perhaps my opinion is 
now influenced by what lias transpired in 

Mr. Muse. Aside from your speculations, do you have any knowl- 
edge ? 

Mr. Pepper. Aside from speculation ; no. 

Mr. Muse. Incidentally, did you ever talk to any of Congressman 
Mills' aides about this I O IJ draft movement, Avhich is appended to 
exhibit No. 2? 

Mr. Pepper. No, I've never talked to any of his aides that I know of. 

JNIr. Muse. Did you talk to anyone from AMPI about it ? 

Mr. Pepper. No. Wait a minute — about the label itself at that time ? 

Mr. Muse. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Pepper. Yes, I got mad. 

Mr. Muse. And who did you speak with ? 

Mr. Pepper. Well, I don't remember who was in the ofRce at the 
time. But Avhen this came across my desk, I'm sure that I showed it 
to Johnson and a few of the others, and I kind of blew my stack a 
little ])it because this was not in accord with the agreement, to begin 
with. And I know that I let them know my feelings about it. 

And it Avas immediately then that I Avrote the memo. 

;Mr. Muse. The agreement you lefer to is the effort at bipartisan- 
ship? 

Mr. Pepper. Yes. 

Mr. INIusE. Was there any effort to solicit any funds bv Congressman 
Mills at the rally ? 

Mv. Pepper. No. 



7725 

Mr, ;Muse. And again, his speech and his actions didn't demonstrate, 
or didn't seek to generate a candidacy, did they ? 

Mr. Pepper. As a matter of fact, I thought it was pretty dry. 

Mr. Muse. Fine, thank you. I have no other questions. 

Mr. Sanders. No further questions. That will be the end of the 
record. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11 :40 a.m.. the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
was adjourned.] 



7726 






Pepper Exhibit No. 1 



J^{Hif^ ^t4£/i^ €^^ ^€f^i^a/€{m 



Post OHicg Box 663 • AMES, IOWA 50010 



March 26, 197l» 



Hoipirt, I A 
Glinn Short, Sac'V. 
Adal. I A 



DIRECTORS 

Ralph O. BaKar 
Wabilar City, lA 

Jamas Olskaly 
Klaton City, lA 

Harold Bolton 



Ma 



. lA 



CJMI Chapman 

Chatokaa, lA 
Larry Crotsar 

Cra^ton, I A 
Edtvin Oecktr 

Claranca, lA 
Kallh Drahn 

Elgin. lA 
Paul Erb 

Floyd, lA 
Jamat Faurot 

Siblay, I A 
Warran Garrala 

Ml. Plaatanl, lA 
Macy E. Garwood 



. >A 



Vinti 
Cloyd Hall 



Ron Hanricht 



EIn 



• Hu 



, lA 



H. L. McMahan 

SprlngvHIa, lA 
Robart Nana 

Eagia Grova, lA 
David Neuroth 
' Halbur, lA 
JOKph O'Hara 

Shanandoah, lA 
Orvllla Pugh 

Mount Union, lA 
Gtann Saalock 

Council Bluffa, lA 
Norman Still 

Dal MolnM, lA 
Harold Van Za« 

Otlay, I A 
Ktlth Volgt 

Eegla Grova. lA 
Orlyn Waatandorf 

Raadlyn, I A 



STAFF 

Garald R. Peppor 

Exacutlva DIrMtIM 

Lillian Oodd 

Offics Managaf 

Carolyn Carr 

OKIca AMialant 



OFFICE 
023 Ninth StrMt 

TELEPHONE 



i.r 



Governor Robert Ray | , , - 

State Capitol Building | ■■;}•,■; 

Dee Moines, lA 

•A 
Dear Governor Ray, ••■• , ■■a' 

I read with conaideratile interest your comment in this 
morning's Register saying that cooperatives had been 
"used" in the Cooperative Rally in October, 1971, in Amesa 

In retrospect and in light of information provided by • ' 
AMPI's ovn investigation, I believe you are right. It 
hurts to have to admit that I may have made an error in 
Judgement by falling prey to someone's carefully planned ; 
strategy. In the beginning I really had no reason to be 
suspicious of anyone's motives, except perhaps one — and 
that was — why would Wilbur Mills call Gerald Pepper at home " 
on Labor Day of 1971? (A point his spokesman denied in 
last night's Des Moines Tribune, and perhaps impossible to 
prove.) Obviously the public would scoff at such a ridi- 
culous idea, were it made public. And yet, is it not more . 
ridiculous to believe that Gerald Pepper could even get an 
audience with Wilbur Mills, much less convince him to come . 
to Iowa. To cover this possible challenge to the projects 
integrity a carefully staged meeting in Washington was held 
in which I "officially" issued an invitation. This, of 
course, was documented, filmed and made a part of the 
record. I believe, now, that I'd been "had" — had by ex- ■ 
perts in political games, apparently. 

Governor, if I have caused you or any of the other digni- 
taries on the platform that day euiy grief or embarrassment . ' 
over this strange episode, I sincerely apologize and hope 
that you understand that it was in no way intentional nor 
contrived by myself nor the people I work for. I'm sure 
that you and the other dignitaries who appeared that day- 
did so on a basis of confidence in the Iowa Institute of ■ 
Cooperation. Perhaps by this letter we .c tin maintain that 
basis of integrity. 

For myself, I'm expendable — for the thousands of fairmer 
cooperative members across Iowa it must be most embarrassing. 
I am confident that eventually! we will all realize the truth 
of the matter and that's as iV should be. ,: 



Sincerely, 




jerald R. Pepper 
Executive Director 



cy 



7727 



Pepper Exhibit No. 2 

:C \S00^^ ^^^^/C CoOP€{l«TIV€S INC. 

i ■■' , • BOOO INTERSTATE DRIVE • P. O. BOX SdGS • TELEPHOME: B6S-02S0 

• LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 7SS09 • 

MILTON W. SCQTT . C«>,.4-«n,K=^ lA 10 71 HARRY L. OSWALD 

Pi^iOci September 14 r 19 71 General Manager 

RALPH U. DITTLE - LELANO F. LEATHERMAN 

Vtf.c President General Counsel 

JOHN L. FAULKNER , .- . 

Secrelarv 

DEAN HODGES 

Treasurer 

Mr. Roger Peterson, Manager , . 

Butler Coxonty Rural Electric Cooperative - \ 

Allison, Iowa 50602 

Dear Mr. Peterson: 

Congressman Wilbur Mills of our Second District has been a close 
friend of the electric cooperative program throughout his career 
in the Congress. 1 have had his influential help since 1948. 
We would not have had our first or succeeding generating loans 
without his aid; He has been a vigorous supporter of adequate 
loan funds for the total program; \ 

He was most important in writing the- tax laws that have been most 
important to the status of the electric cooperatives in his posi- 
tion as Chairman of the powerful Ways & Means Committee. All of 
us in the rural electrification program, wherever we are, owe him 
a debt of gratitude. 

On .^Saturday, October 2, at 1:30 p.m.. Congressman Mills will be 
the principal speaker at the kickoff meeting for Iowa Co-op Monti 
in the Hilton Coliseum on the campus of the University of Iowa at 
Ames. Perhaps"you know of the efforts of many to persuade him to ■" 
become an active candidate for the Presidency of the United States. 
We need a large attendance at this meeting — it will help our 
program. 

At a similar type of recognition meeting here in Little Rock, over 
3,000 managers, directors, employees cind members of the electric 
cooperatives were in attendance. Can you help ks in a similar way 
for the Iowa meeting? We identified ourselves as electric coopera- 
tive people with the attached badge. (We will supply these to you 
if you can help.) 



Yours truly. 




Harry L. Oswald 
General Manager 

P.S. Regardless of his decision ^lbout running,: his strength will, 
help us with whomever is nominated. And regardless, if his part^ 
prevails in electing a majority in the House of Representatives,' 
he will again be the Chairman of the Ways & Means Committee. 



7728 




7729 



Pepper Exhibit No. 3 



OFflCEKS 

Joieph Slow, Prat. 

Wcller. lowo 
Tra«i> Foliar, V. Praa. 

Hoiperl, lowo 
Williom Porroll. SacV 

Donvilla. lowo 

DIRECTODS 

William Bchrani. Jr. 

Fradcricklbui^, lowo 
Horold Bsllon 

Morcwi, lowo 
Co.i Bucfcmon 

C-orrtorillo. Iowa 
Clill Chopmon 

Cherokee, lowo 
lorry Croliar 

Crellort, lowo 
KeilS Drohn 

Elgin, lowo 
Foul Erb 

Fiord, lowo 
Jomal Fourol 

Siblay, lowo 
Moey E. Gorwood 

Vinlon, lowo 
Cloyd Holl 

Napier, lowo 
Elmer Huenemonn 

Gornar, lowo 
Alton Jorlh 

Vincent, lowo 
Glenn lovig 

Del Moines, Iowa 
Sei McCornick 

Kolbur, lowo 
H. I. .'A.Mohon 

Springvilla, lowo 
Sobtrl Ne lO 

Eagle Grove, lowo 
loiepi) O'Horo 

Stienondooh, lowo 
Orville Pugli 

Mount Union, Iowa 
Glenn }<heperi 

lott Notion, Iowa 
Slenn Seolock 

Council Blvifft, Iowa 
3lenn Sborl 

Adal. lo»a 
lormon Slill 

Oet Moinei, Iowa 
-lorold Von Ze* 

Otiey, lowo 
(eitli Volgl 

Eoglo Crovo, Iowa 

STAFF 

5e'old R. Pepper 
Eieculive Oiretlor 

illion Dodd 
Office Manoger 

!arolyn Corr 
Office Aiilllonl 

OFFICE: 
13 Ninth SirmI 



^^{f4i^a ^nd^/e^ €^ ^-^€^ie^€^€}m' 



Post Office Box 668 • AMES, IOWA 50010 



September l8, 1971 



To: RKC Managers 

Fromr Gerald Pepper, Executive Director 

Re: KICK-OFF - OCTOBER IS COOPERATIVE MONTH ' 

Dear Sir: 

It has come to my attention that interests outside the State 
of Iowa have misread the intent of the October 2 kick-off meeting 
at the James Hilton Coliseum in Amea. 

This is a bipartisan meeting to focus attention on agriculture 
and its problems - and the role cooperatives take in solving these 
problems . 

We ask you to disregard any attempt to change the thrust of 
this meeting and ask you to support this meeting by eucouraging 
all co-op members to participate in a sincere effort to maintain 
a bipartisan effort. Iowa Institute of Cooperation does not 
sanction any efforts to divert the original intent of the meeting. 



7730 



Pepper Exhibit No. 4 



^/p mWA COOPERATIVE MONTH 



^^ 



KICK-OFF 



Attend the first function at the 

newJAMES HILTON COLISEUM 

1:30 pm Saturday, October 2 

Iowa State University -Ames 



Is-**-" 



/' 



-■■tBiS.^ f" W -'j^:^;^^ fe.« *»» -y*^at^x 



^!/Stiln^=|■^,a,<J^ Xk^Xi*. 



Hear and Meet 



■ 








,^ 




, 


-•■■"'■J 












-inl 


,» 

"> 



Robert D. Ray 
Governor of the State of Iowa 




Senator Jack Richard Miller 





Contreisman Wilbur Mills 



Congressman Neal Smith 



FREE ATTENDANCE PRIZES - 

• Two color television sets • Clothes washer 

• Clothes dryer • Home Freezer 

• Refrigerator/ Freezer combination 



Sponsored By The 

IOWA INSTITUTE OF COOPERATION 



TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign AcTi\T[TiES, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 :05 p.m., in room 
G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building. 

Present : Senator Weicker. 

Also present : David Dorsen, assistant chief counsel ; Alan S. Weitz, 
assistant majority counsel ; Donald Sanders, deputy minority counsel ; 
Deborah Herbst, research assistant. 

Senator Weicker. Would you raise your right hand ? Do you swear 
that the evidence that you are about to give to the committee is the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Hanman. I do. 

]\Ir. Weitz. Mr. Hanman, fij-st I would like to serve you with a sub- 
pena from the committee for your appearance here today as previously 
agreed to by your attorney. Now, I think the record should show that 
you have already appeared and testified on November 13, 1973, and 
therefore we will not ask you the background questions that we did, 
since they will be included in tlio record for that day. Would your 
counsel, however, identify himself for the record ? 

Mr. HoECKER. Wayne Hoecker. I'm a partner in the law firm of 
Gage, Tucker, Hodges, Kreamer, Kelly & Verner in Kansas City, Mo. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Hanman, did you attend a meeting at the Louisville 
Airport late on the night of the 23d or early in the morning of the 24th 
of March 1971 ? 

TESTIMONY OF GARY EDWIN HANMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY WAYNE 

HOECKER, COUNSEL 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Who attended that meeting ? 

Mr. Hanman. To the best of my recollection it was myself, Dave 
Parr, Harold Nelson, and Paul Alagia at the airport. 

Mr. Weitz. Was Bob Lilly also present? 

Mr. Hanman. He may have been. But my recollection — I am not 
sure ; he may have been. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you tell us who arranged the meeting and how 
you came to meet at the airport for that meeting ? 

Mr. Hanman. As I recall, I believe I had gone to bed that night, and 
Dave Parr, I believe is the one, woke me up or got me and said : "We 
are going to Louisville to meet with Paul Alagia." 

Mr. Weitz. You were in Washington at the time ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Parr and others were in Washington after the meet- 
ing with the President that morning? 

(7731) 1 



7732 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he tell you what the purpose of going to Louisville 
to meet Mr. Alagia was ? 

Mr. Hanman, Yes. As I recall, the purpose of the trip was to talk 
to Alagia — Paul Alagia — about the advisability of attending the 
Kepublican fundraiser that was scheduled the next day here in 
Washington, if ADEPT was to participate, and to talk to anyone 
alone. 

Mr. Weitz. You mean participate — contribute to the dinner ? 
Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know how much money ADEPT had in its 
treasury at that point ? 

Mr. Hanman. No, I do not. 
Mr. Weitz. Was it at least $10,000 ? 

Mr. Hanman. I would surmise it was. I really do not know what the 
balance was. 

Mr. Weitz. What was the need to go to Mr. Alagia ? In other words, 
what would be the purpose of talking to him about whether people 
from your organization, or possibly from the Associated Milk Pro- 
ducers, Mr. Parr's organization, would attend the dinner? 

Mr. Hanman. As I recall the circumstances, collectively we had been 
attempting to get some legislation passed that would have amended 
the 1949 support law for milk. We had been contacting Congressmen 
and Senators. We knew this fundraiser was coming up. Tentatively, 
we thought we would attend this fundraiser. 

After the Secretary had made his announcement of no increase 
in supports, we pretty well agreed that we would not attend, at least 
not in any significant amount. The reaso2i for going to this meeting-^ 
the thought was, maybe we ought to go in a larger amount — buy more 
tickets than what we originally thought. 

Mr. Weitz. Had you bought any tickets or made any contributions 
up to that point for the dinner or to the Republican Party ? 

Mr. Hanman. I do not think we bought any tickets to the dinner. 
To the Republican Party, I do not recall. 

Mr. Weitz. How about in March 1971 ? 

Mr. Hanman. I do not believe that we had. 

Mr. Weitz. How much was contemplated prior to the Secretary of 
Agriculture's decision on the 12th ? Let's start with ADEPT. 

Mr. Hanman. I really do not recall. I think what we were thinking 
about would be a ticket apiece for the ADEPT Committee membere. 
Tha/t would generally be the type of contribution that we would make 
to something like that. 

Mr. Weitz. How many committee members were there at that time ? 

Mr. Hanman. Six, plus myself ; it Avould be seven. 

Mr. Weitz. That would have meant a contribution of $1,000 a ticket, 
or $7,000? 

Mr. Hanman. Right. 

Mr. Weitz. How about the other two co-ops or their trusts ? Wliat 
was contemplated before the Secretary's decision on the 12th? 

Mr. Hanman. I really do not know. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have any discussions about that with them? 

Mr. Hanman. Beforehand ? 

Mr. Weitz. With the representatives of the other two co-ops? 



7733 

Mr. HoECKER. Prior to March 12 ? 

Mr. Weitz. Prior to March 12. 

Mr. Hanman. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Weitz. You do not know whether they were intending to go or 
contribute before March 12 ? 

Mr. Haxman. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Weitz. What about after March 12? Between the Secretary's 
decision on March 12 and this flight out to Louisville on the night of 
the 23d, had you had any discussions with them about contributions 
either to the dinner, the Republican Party in general, or to the 
President's campaign ? 

Mr. Hanman. I do not believe I did with SPACE. My recollection 
is that TAPE had made some tentative plans to buy a substantial 
number of dinner tickets before the March 12 decision or immediately 
thereafter. After the decision was rendered they were having some sec- 
ond thoughts about attending it in that large a number. As I recall, 
they were talking about six to eight tables, and there are 10 plates 
to the table. 

Mr. Weitz. That would be 60 to 80 tickets, or $60,000 to $80,000. 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Your understanding was that they, too, were having 
second thoughts about it after the decision on the 12th ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes ; that is my recollection. 

Mr. Weitz. Who did you talk to about that? Who indicated that 
to you ? 

Mr. Hanman. I believe that it was Dave Parr. My recollection would 
be that it would be Dave. 

Mr. Weitz. By the time that you flew out to Louisville on the 23d, 
did they indicate that they had made any contributions to the dinner 
or to the Republicans ? 

Mr. Hanman. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Weitz. You had attended the meeting with the President the 
morning of the 23d, is that correct ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Dave Parr had attended that meeting, too ; is that cor- 
rect? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. I believe you said Harold Nelson had also attended 
the meeting at Louisville. He also attended that morning, did he not? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Paul Alagia was also at the meeting with the President, 
was he not ? 

Mr. Hanman. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. Can you tell us what the reason was that you flew out 
from Washington to Louisville for this meeting, rather than having 
discussed the matter that morning, either before or after the meeting 
with the President ? 

Mr. Hanman. My recollection of it was — the first thought was that 
the dairy farmers would attend this Republican dinner in substantial 
amounts. Then after the March 12 decision, the thought was that we 
would not — maybe even boycott it ; not go at all. 

Sometime, I believe, between the meeting with the President and 
the dinner, which was to be the next night, I believe Dave got a call 



7734 

from somebody — I do not know from whom — who indicated that we 
should not boycott the meeting ; that we should go ahead and go to this 
dinner as previously planned. And as I recall, the flight to Louisville 
Avas to talk to Alagia about Avhat lie thought about that, 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know Avho called Parr ? 

Mr. Hanman. I do not know for sure. 

Mr. Wbitz. Did he tell you or did anyone else tell you who called 
Parr? 

Mr. HoECKER. Did Parr t«ll him that ? 

Mr. Weitz. Did Parr tell you that or did vou know that it was a 
fact? 

Mr. Hanman. I do not know who called him. But it is my recollec- 
tion that's why we went. 

Mr. Weitz. Did someone tell you, or do you recall from whatever 
source who, you were told, had called Parr ? 

Mr. Hanman. My understanding was it was a call from Phil 
Campbell. 

Mr. Weitz. He was Under Secretary of Agriculture ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you told or do you have any recollection of what 
was supposed to have transpired in that telephone conversation ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. My understanding was that the call, in effect, said 
we should go to the dinner; we should not boycott the dinner; we 
should go ahead with the plans as previously made. 

Mr. Weitz. Had you ever talked to Phil Campbell about contribu- 
tions activity, as opposed to the merits of the price-support decision? 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know whether anyone connected with any of the 
three principal dairy co-ops had spoken to Campbell about contribu- 
tions activities or possible contributions ? 

Mr. Hanman. Not that I could testify to, no. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know how Campbell knew about the plans to go 
to the dinner, the possible boycott of the dinner ? - 

Mr. Hanman. No ; I do not. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you Ivuow whether there was any reference by Camp- 
bell to the price support matter, either any meetings that were going 
on within the administration or a review of the price support ^ — the fii-st 
decision, and so forth ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. I do not. 

Mr. Weitz. Do 3-011 know whether Campbell indicated to Parr any 
reason that you should not boycott the dinner ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. As I i-ecall, the general statement was. "Progress 
is being made. We should go ahead and go to the dinner.'- 

Mr. Weitz, Progress is being made with regard to what ? 

Mr. Hanman. To this price-support activity — working on this legis- 
lation. 

Mr. Weitz. Campbell was in the administration. He would not have 
to call vou to tell vou progress Avas being made with legislation, would 
he? 

Mr. Hanman. Normally not. I would think that would be true. 

Mr. Weitz. In fact, was he not referring to the fact that the progress 
that was being made in the administration Avas regarding an adminis- 
trative increase ? 



7735 

Mr. Hanman. I do not know. 

Mr. Weitz. Is that not what yoii understood ? 

Mr. Hanman. I understood that progress was being made in our 
objective — to get price support increases, legislatively or administra- 
tively. 

Mr. Weitz. What was Campbell referring to ? 

Mr. Hanmax. I do not know. 

Mr. Weitz. Wliat was your understanding, talking about it with 
Parr and others? 

Mr. Hanmax. I do not know. I do not recollect whether it was legis- 
lative or administrative. I think it could have been legislative. I think 
there would have been some calls to him from Republican Congress- 
men or Senators with respect to this. One of the things that we asked 
them to do was to call the administration people — the people in the 
administration. 

Mr. Weitz. They had been doing that for a number of weeks, had 
they not? 

Mr. Hanmax. That's right. 

Mr. Weitz. The effort had been going on with the dairy people in 
Congress and elsewhere for a number of weeks or months. 

Mr. Haxmax-^. Intensively since that INIarch decision; yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have any knowledge or were you told of any 
meetings in the administration or the White House after the morning 
meeting with the President ? 

Mr. Haxmax^. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Have you ever heard, in connection with that call from 
Campbell or otherwise, any question put to Nelson or Parr or any of 
the dairy co-op representatives, about whether the increase^ — if the 
administration were to have granted the increase in March of 1971, 
they would have gotten the dairy people "off their backs" — meaning 
the backs of the administration ? 

Mr. Hax-^max'. If the administration would increase it, would that 
get the dairy people off their backs ? 

]\Ir. Weitz. Eight. Did you ever hear any reference about that in 
connection with the call from Campbell to Parr? 

Mr. Haxjiax. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Was that phrase or that understanding talked about at 
all in March of 1971 ? 

Mr. Hax'max'. No ; not in my presence. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you understand that the contributions or the re- 
quests that you not boycott the dinner and the subsequent meeting in 
Louisville was for the purpose of raising contributions that would 
somehow improve your chances of getting a price-suoport increase? 

Mr. Haxmax\ In this total environment that we were in, working 
with Congress and Senators, I think we had some request that we at- 
tend this dinner, and I think in that vein would be why we would be 
going to the dinner ; yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall what time you left Washington for the 
meeting in Louisville ? 

Mr. Haxmax. No, I do not. It was late, I know that. 

]Mr, Weitz. You were already in bed — close to midnight, before you 
left Washington ? 

Mr. Haxmax. I do not know ; I suppose. 



7736 

Mr. Weitz. You flew to Louisville by AMPI jet ? 
Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. This was a special trip ; the plane was not going any- 
Avhere else on the way? 

Mr. Hanman. That is my recollection. That is right. 
Mr. Weitz. Were you told of any arrangements to try to meet, Al- 
agia there — contact Alagia or his wife, or so forth — to make sure he 
would be there ? 

Mr. Hanman. It was my luiderstanding when we took off that was 
who we were going to talk with. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know where he was at the time ? 
Mr. Hanman. No, I did not at the time. 
Mr. Weitz. Was he there when you arrived in Louisville ? 
Mr. Hanman. I do not believe he was. 
Mr. Weitz. How long did you wait before he came ? 
Mr. Hanman. I do not know. I don't think very long, because I do 
not believe we were in the airport very long. 

Mr. Weitz. Was he arriving by plane from somewhere else ? 
Mr. Hanman. Yes, that is my recollection. 
Mr. Weitz. When he came, what happened ? 

Mr. Hanman. "When he came, we sat down in the lobby right out 
in the foyer of the little airport, on the benches out there, and talked 
to him about the Republican dinner that was coming up and the fact 
that we wanted to attend it. We thought it would look better if all 
three political action trusts bought tickets, and if ADEPT was going 
to buy a significant amount of tickets, we would have to negotiate a 
loan. Generally, that was the gist of the discussion. 

Mr. Weitz. Negotiate a loan from SPACE or TAPE— or both? 
Mr. Hanman. Either one. 
Mr. Weitz. How much was needed ? 

Mr. Hanman. As I recall, we were talking in the neighborhood of 
$40,000 or $50,000. 

Mr. Weitz. From ADEPT? 
Mr. Hanman. Yes. 
Mr. HorxKER. For ADEPT. 

Mr. Weitz. So ADEPT could take the money and contribute it? 
Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. How much was contemplated that would be contributed 
from the other two co-ops ? 

Mr. Hanmax. I really do not know ; I do not recall. 
Mr. Weitz. At least $100,000 ? 

Mr. Hanman. My recollection is that the total we were talking about 
was like eight tables, which would be $80,000. 

Mr. Wettz. tape was larger than ADEPT, was it not. in terms of 
membership and cash on hand ? 
Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. At that point, at least, SPACE had more cash on hand 
than ADEPT, too ; was that not your underetanding ? 
Mr. Hanman. T would guess that is right ; yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you tell me why ADEPT would be targeted, so 
to speak, to contribute $40,000 or $501000 out of a total of $80,000 when 
you had two more wealthy co-ops or trusts that would participate? 
Mr. Hanman. No, I could not. 



7737 

Mr. Weitz. Was not the targeted fignre actually much more than 
$60,000 or $80,000, all told, not only for the dinner but the total con- 
tribution that was being discussed at the airport ? 

Mr. Hanman. My recollection of the meeting was with respect to the 
dinner — in the neighborhood of eight tables. Tliat is my recollection 
of what we were talking about. 

Mr. Weitz. You do not recall a discussion of perhaps $200,000 or 
$300,000 total contributions from the three trusts? 

Mr. Hanman. For the dinner ? 

Mr. Weitz. For the dinner and also to other Eepublican committees ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. My recollection is, we talked to him in the neigh- 
borhood of six to eight tables. 

Mr, Weitz. For the dinner ? 

Mr. Hanman. For the dinner. 

Mr. Weitz. No other moneys for any other purposes or over a period 
of time? 

Mr. Hanman. No; that is my recollection of what happened. 

Mr. Weitz. Was SPACE, if they were to loan ADEPT the $40,000 
or $50,000, would they also make a contribution in addition? 

Mr. Hanma^st. I think we talked to him about his feelings on attend- 
ing this dinner at this time. We talked to him about SPACE making 
contributions. I cannot testify that he made any specific commitment 
of an amoimt for SPACE at that meeting. 

Mr. Weitz. Was he asked for an amoimt or was any amount dis- 
cussed with him above the loans — the possible loan to ADEPT? 

Mr. Hanmax. I cannot recall. 

Mr. Weitz. It may have, but you don't recall either way. It may 
or may not have ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr, Weitz. Was there any reference at the meeting to the meeting 
with the President that morning, or about the price-support matter in 
general ? 

Mr. Hanman. I am sure there was. 

Mr. Weitz. What was said ? 

Mr. Hanmax. I do not know that I could specifically quote any- 
body as to what was said. I am sure we talked about each other's 
impressions of the meeting with the President. The reason I say that, 
right after the President — everybody just scattered. There was not any 
meeting afterwards that I recall. I am sure we talked to Paul about his 
impressions at the meeting with the President. 

I am sure also that we had discussions with him about what kind of 
response their people were getting from Congressmen and Senatore 
in their areas that they were contacting in their efforts for the legisla- 
lation. I am sure that the whole area of the price-support issue was 
discussed in that context. 

Mr. Weitz. What about Campbell's call ? Was that discussed ? 

Mr. Hanman. Not in my pi-esence ; not that I recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Would that not have been relevant if the Under Secretary 
of Agriculture calls one of the co-op leaders and tells him not to boy- 
cott the dinner? Would that not be one of the first things that you 
would talk about when you are talking about going to the dinner? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes; it would have been. I do not recall that coming 
up. 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 



7738 

Mr. Weitz. What was discussed to try to convince Alagia that they 
should not boycott the dinner, but should contribute ? 

Mr. Hanman. What was discussed ? 

Mr. Weitz. Right. What points were made to try to convince him 
that he should participate ? 

Mr. Hanman You have to realize that I was not doing the selling. 
I was along. As I recall, Harold and Dave were doing most of the talk- 
ing with Alagia. In some cases they were in a different location than 
I was. The benches were in a row. 

Mr. Weitz. They were sitting side by side, but on a different side 
from you ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember the arrangement — the seating 
arrangement ? 

Mr. Hanman. No, I do not. I do remember that they were off on one 
side and I was over in another corner. 
. Mr. Weitz. You could not hear the discussion ? 

Mr. Hanman. I could hear some of it, but I was not in on all of it, 
I don't think. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know whether Nelson told them something that 
he had not told you ? 

Mr. Hanman. I have no reason to believe that ; no. 

Mr. Weitz. Conversely, had Nelson or Parr told you something that 
they did not tell Alagia ? 

Mr. Hanman. Not that I know about. 

Mr. Weitz. You don't recall any reference to the call from Campbell 
to Parr? 

Mr. Hanman. No, I do not recall talking to Alagia. 

Mr. Weitz. How about other contacts with people in the adminis- 
tration? Was anybody else referred to in the Louisville meeting, 
anybody in the Cabinet or any of AlNIPI's lawyers or any other White 
House people ? 

Mr. Hanman. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Weitz. No one mentioned John Connally ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. Weitz. How about Murray Chotiner ? 

Mr. Hanman. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Weitz. How about Charles Colson ? 

Mr. Hanman. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Did anyone mention John Ehrlichman's name ? 

Mr. Hanman. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Aside from names of individual officials, did anyone 
at the meeting, or apart from the meeting — did anyone refer to 
AMPI's or the dairy co-ops' contacts in the White House in any 
administration in reference to the contributions and the price-support 
matter ? 

Mr. Hanman. No; I do not recall any individual names being 
mentioned. 

Mr. Weitz. What was Alagia's response to the request ? 

Mr. Hanman. As I recall, he indicated that he Avould not recom- 
mend SPACE making a loan to ADEPT. And I do not even recall 
making a specific indication that he would make a contribution from 
SPACE. 



7739 

My impression of the discussion is that he was favorably inclined 
to the proposition. 

Mr. Weitz. Of making some contribution ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he indicate that he, or that Morgan and he or John 
Moser, had already decided to make some contribution for the dinner ? 

Mr. Hanman. I do not believe he did ; no. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he indicate how much he Avould be willing to 
recommend that SPACE contribute to the dinner ? 

Mr. Hanmax. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Did anyone indicate to him at the meeting the timing 
or the urgency of the request — that is, of the contributions themselves ? 
Any deadlines that had to be met or any timetable to be followed? 

Mr. Hanman. My recollection is, we were talking to him about 
going to the dinner and the dinner was the next day or the next 
night. The idea Avas that we would go and we would have dairy 
farmers attend from the three groups. 

Mr. Weitz. ADEPT Committee members did attend the dinner, 
did they not ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. You did attend, also ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. You did not make a contribution the next day, did you ? 

Mr. Hanman. I do not believe that we did. 

Mr. Weitz. Therefore, it was not absolutely necessary that SPACE 
contribute the next day in order to attend the dinner. They would just 
have to make a pledge or commitment of some sort. 

Mr. Hanman. I think that is right. 

Mr. Weitz. What was the deadline that was told to Alagia or dis- 
cussed among yourselves about either the actual contribution or the 
pledge for the contribution ? 

Mr. Hanman. As I recall — I am just trying to recall what I think 
we did in ADEPT. I think that I got our committees' names from 
Marion Harrison. As I recall, he was the one who had reserved the 
tables and he needed to know as soon as possible if we were going to use 
them or not. 

Mr. Weitz. You mean before the dinner ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. You told that to Alagia, or someone that evening prob- 
ably told that to Alagia ? 

Mr. Hanman. I surmise that is what we talked to him about. 
• Mr. Weitz. You also had to check before the dinner in order to clear 
a certain number of seats or tickets with your people, did you not ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did vou intend to send 40 or 50 people from ADEPT? 

Mr. Hanman. From ADEPT? 

Mr. Weitz. Yes. 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. Weitz. So that the $40,000 or $50,000 would not cover tickets— 
Avould be more than enough to cover tickets for Mid- Am and ADEPT ? 

Mr. Hanman. For our dairy farmers that were going to attend ; yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Would it cover other tickets, or just by way of 
contribution ? 



7740 

Mr. Hanman. There were other people that wanted to attend. AA's 
of Congressmen, AA's of Senators. As I recall, there were other people 
from the administration we were furnishing tickets for. 

Mr. DoRSEN. Do you what time the telephone call from Phil Camp- 
bell was? 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. DoRSEN. Had you heard that it was in the comparatively early 
evening ? 

Mr. Hanman. It was before our flight. 

Mr, DoRSEN. Was it essentially during working hours ? 

Mr. Hanman. I really do not know. 

Mr. DoRSEN. Was there any reason given why you were not called 
until close to midnight? 

Mr. Hanman. No ; I do not believe there was. 

Mr. DoRSEN. Was there any reference to any other telephone con- 
versations or contacts, other than the telephone call from Campbell ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. DoRSEN. Was there any discussion among youreelves as to dis- 
cussing with Alagia the question that was discussed by using a tele- 
phone conversation rather than a flight to Louisville ? 

Mr. Hanman. Do you mean, why did we not talk to him on the 
phone ? 

Mr. DoRSEN. Essentially, yes. 

Mr. Hanman. Well now, I do not know that was discussed. How- 
ever, if you understood the way many times Dave and Harold operated, 
they would jump in their plane and go see somebody if they wanted 
to talk to him rather than do it on the telephone. That was not unusual 
for them — just on the spur of the moment to jump in a plane and go 
see somebody. 

Mr. DoRSEN. Even at that hour ? 

Mr. Hanman. I guess that was the only time I had been on a plane 
with them at that hour of the day. But there have been other instances 
where we get a call and say : "We will be by for you in an hour, we 
are going to so-and-so," 

Mr, DoRSEN, The record does reflect that the plane was used exten- 
sively. Again, this was a meeting set for or approximately at 4 a.m. 
at the Louisville airport. The question again is: Is there anything 
that you know why this could not be done over the telephone ? Was 
there anything discussed to that effect ? 

Mr. Hanman. No; I guess it never occurred to me. 

Mr. Weitz. In connection with the flight to Ijouisville, at the meet- 
ing, was Jake Jacobsen's name mentioned ? 

Mr. Hanman. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Weitz. How did that meeting end? What was the agreement 
or result? 

Mr. Hanman. I don't know if we had any agreement. As I say, I 
came away with the impression that going ahead and attending was 
favorably received by Alagia. I did come away with the understand- 
ing that SPACE would not loan ADEPT the money. 

Mr. Weitz. Therefore, if ADEPT were to make a contribution it 
would have to receive the money — borrow the money from TAPE? 

Mr. Hanman. Or some other source, yes. 



7741 

Mr. Weitz. Was it also your understanding that someone from 
SPACE was to notify you people as to the amount they would con- 
tribute that next day, the 24th ? 

Mr. Hanman. No; I did not have any understanding of that, no. 

Mr. Weitz. "What did you do as a result of the meeting? 

Mr. Hanman. What did I do? 

Mr. Weitz. Yes. I take it after the meeting you flew back to Wash- 
ington ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you go back to sleep ? 

Mr. Hanman. I am sure I did. I probably slept on the plane coming 
home. iVs I recall, my next action was to call the committee mem- 
bers — no. I called my secretary and had her call the committee mem- 
bers, the ADEPT committee members, and see if they could not attend 
the dinner that night. I believe that is all I recall doing right after 
that. 

Mr. Weitz. Where were the ADEPT members at that point ? 

Mr. Hanman. They were all at home. 

Mr. "^Veitz. Did they fly in for the day ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. What did they do — come in with the corporate jet? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you go get them ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Ultimately, those six members plus yourself attended 
the dinner for ADEPT? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did anybody else for ADEPT and Mid-Am attend the 
dinner ? 

Mr. Hanman. I do not recall. I believe that's all. 

Mr. Weitz. How many from the other two co-ops ? 

Mr. Hanman. I do not know. There were quite a few of them. 

Mr. Weitz. As many as 60 or 80 — or fewer than that? 

Mr. Hanman. Fewer than that. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know whether SPACE made a contribution on 
the 24th? 

Mr. Hanman. From what I read in the paper recently, they did. 

Mr. Weitz. You had no knowledge of that that day ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. Weitz. By seeing them at the dinner, you assumed that they had 
pledged or made some type of contribution ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes ; but I did not count their heads to see how many 
they bought. 

Mr. Weitz. Who did you pledge your commitment to that day? 

Mr. Hanman. Probably Dave Parr or Marion Harrison, one of the 
two, probably. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you do it on the way home in the airplane after the 
Louisville meeting ? 

Mr. Hanman. I do not know when I did it, whether it was coming 
home or the next day or when. But we did it. 

Mr. Weitz. How much did you commit ? 

Mr. Hanman. I believe we said that we would go up to $50,000 if 
we could get the loan, and if the committee members did not veto it. 



7742 

Mr. Weitz. Did yoii ask the committee members that day ? 

Mr. Hanman. Well, I do not specifically remember asking them. 
They did come to the dinner and we did, after the dinner, have some 
time to discuss the dinner and all that. 

Mr. Weitz. There were only six or seven people from ADEPT 
attending that dinner. That is $6,000 or $7,000. That's different from 
$50,000. 

Did yon raise the question of $50,000 before the dinner? 

Mr. Hanman. I am not sure that I did. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you talk about it with them after the dinner? 

Mr. Hanman. I assume I did. I am not sure that I did. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you talk with Nelson and/or Parr after the dinner 
about contributions ? 

Mr-. ITanman. As I recall, after we had got back from the dinner, 
when we were in the hotel room, myself and most of my committee 
members spent a long time in the wee hours of the morning again 
talking to Harold and Dave. But we did not talk about any specific con- 
tributions per se. We talked more in terms of philosophy of involve- 
ment in Government, and we had quite a bit of discussion about proce- 
dure, how we were going to go about getting the legislation passed. 
People had a lot of questions relative to involvement in governmental 
decisions. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you not hear Page Belcher, at the dinner, tell peo- 
ple that the administration was going to raise the price supports the 
next day ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Dave Parr did not tell you that either ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Nobody at the dinner told you that ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. Weitz. At the conversations at the hotel afterwards, nobody 
raised the possibility of an administrative increase? 

ISIr. Hanman. I am sure that was talked about, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. In what context? 

Mr. Hanman. In the context that our two avenues of getting an 
increase in milk supports Avas either doing it through the legislative 
itvenue or having it done through an administrative decision. And 
the effective date, I believe, of the increase, oi- the effective date of 
the new marketing year, was April 1, so the previous announcement 
was not effective yet at that time. 

Mr. Weitz. In these discussions in the hotel aft^r the dinner on 
the night of the 24th and into the 25th, you had no inkling or knowl- 
edge that there was going to be a price-support increase the next day 
announced by the administration ? 

Mr. Hanman, No, sir. I heard about it when I was in Chicago the 
next day. 

Mr. Weitz. That is the formal increase. You had no previous notice 
that there possibly was going to be an increase announced? 

Mr. Hanman. No, sir. I did not. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you with Nelson and Parr the entire evening after 
the dinner ? 

Mr. Hanman. Until we went to bed I was. probably. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you go back to the hotel with Nelson ? 



7743 

Mr. Hanman. Yes, I think we were staying at the same hotel. 

Mr. Weitz. The Madison Hotel ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. You were with him the entire time — from the time you 
went back to the hotel until the time that you went to bed ? 

Mr. Hanman. I think so. I say I think so because I believe we spent 
a lot of time after the dinner with Harold and Dave in the room with 
the ADEPT Committee members. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall Nelson being gone for a period of time 
and then returning, or coming in late to that conversation? 

Mr. Haxmax. My recollection is that they were both there, but 
they may have been gone. My recollection is, we all returned to the 
hotel and we had this long discussion with both of them. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, when you appeared and testified here in Novem- 
ber, you were asked whether you discussed contributions with the 
representatives of the other dairy co-ops in March of 1971, and your 
answer was that the only occasion for that discussion was at the dinner 
on the night of the 24th. 

I take it that you now testify that there were discussions about con- 
tributions on the night of the 23d and after the dinner on the 24th ? 

Mv. Haxmax. The discussions after the dinner were not in specifics — 
in terms of amounts, races or candidates. They wei'e more in lines of 
philosophical discussion. 

]Mr. Weitz. That was not true the night before on the way to Louis- 
ville or at Louisville ? 

Mr. Hanman. What we were talking about there was that Repub- 
lican dinner, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you tell us why you did not testify to the dis- 
cussions that took place at the Louisville Airport at your first appear- 
ance here in November? 

Mr. Hanman. No. I guess I forgot it. 

!Mr. Weitz. Do you know what has refreshed your recollection since 
that time? 

]Mr. Hanman. Well, I believe the first time that I recall this meet- 
ing — or the first time that this meeting came up — was in my discussion 
before the grand jury, when they raised it. Then I saw in the news- 
paper an aiticle that Alagia had testified about the meeting. 

Mr. Weitz, Since that time or before that time, have you discussed 
this meeting, the meeting at the Louisville airport, with any of the 
participants ? 

Mr. Hanman. Since my grand jury appearance? 

Mr. Weitz. Since the night of the meeting, I should say. 

Mr. Hanman. Wim have I talked about the Louisville airport with ? 

Mr. Weitz. Yes. First of all, any of the participants ? 

Mr. Hanman. I may have talked to Dave Parr about it. I do not be- 
lieve I have with Alagia. I do not believe I have with Nelson. But I 
may have with Dave. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know in what context that you discussed this 
with Parr ? 

Mr. Hanman. In what context? 

]Mr. Weitz. Shortly after the meeting in the series of events that 
followed, recently with respect to the testimony ? 



7744 

Mr. Hanman. My recollection would be, recently since I testified 
at the grand jury. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he recall any additional facts that you had not re- 
called in your grand jury testimony ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. I think I asked him if Bob Lilly was along. He 
did not recall whether he was or not. 

Mr. Weitz. You also testified in November — rather, you were asked 
whether you had committed on the day of the 24th the $50,000 con- 
tribution for the dinner and other Republican committees. And you 
answered that you were not sure whether it was that night or not. 

I take it from vour testimony today that you did commit the $50,000 
on the 24th? 

Mr. Hanman. The 24th ? 

Mr. Weitz. The day of the dinner. 

Mr. Hanman. I am sure that is when we would have told either 
Dave or Marion Harrison that we would go to the dinner, yes. 

Ml". Weitz. In order for you to make that commitment, would you 
not have to be sure of the source of the loan ? 

Did not Parr or Nelson more or less assure you that TAPE would 
lend you the money ? 

Mr. Hanman. I am sure they did. 

INIr. Weitz. On the 24tli before you made the commitment ? 

Mr. Hanman. I am sure that is right, or it would have been a con- 
tingent commitment, contingent on getting a loan. I doubt that that 
kind of a commitment would mean much. 

Mr. Weitz. As part of the discussion on the night of the 23d or the 
night of the 24th after the dinner, did you discuss contributions to the 
Presidential campaign ? 

]Mr. Hanman. I am sure that we did talk about the job that the 
President ^as doing, because we talked about all such matters that 
night. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it agreed that perhaDs contributions should be made 
to the President's campaign if there was a price-support increase by 
the administration ? 

Mr. Hanman. No, I do not think that type of an agreement was 
reached. It Mould have been a philosophical or a political action ap- 
proach as to whether you would support the President in his reelection 
effort down the road or whether you would support, somebody else. 

Mr. Weitz. As part of the philosophy that was discussed that night 
or as part of your philosophy in general, Avould it have been your feel- 
ing that you would have been more inclined to support the President 
and contribute to his campaign if, in fact, a price-support increase was 
granted by the administration ? 

Mr. Hanman. I would say that our committee would have been 
more inclined to support his reelection effort if this action had been 
taken. I think you have to recognize also that there were several favor- 
able administrative decisions during his firet term in office, prior to this 
price support, that our committee would have been looking at in try- 
ing to evaluate a candidate for President. 

Mr. Weitz. What would those include ? 

Mr. Hanman. The price supports were increased the year before, 
there was money appropriated for school lunch, and the administra- 
tion — school milk, I mean — there were some decisions on imports. 
Those are the ones that come to my mind readily. 



7745 

Mr. Weitz. You said that you did not recall this meeting in the 
Louisville airport at the time that you testified in November. 

Are you foreclosing recollection of any other facts with regard to the 
meeting other than what you tevStified, or do you believe that you have 
recalled all the facts in connection with that meeting and have testi- 
fied to them here today ? 

Mr. Hanman. Do you mean, am I saying that my memory is 
absolute ? 

Mr. Weitz. Absolutely correct, now, and complete. 

Mr. PIanman. I do not know whether anybody could say that their 
memory is absolutely correct in 1974 as to what happened one night in 
1971. 1 think generally I have testified to the content of what we talked 
about. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Sanders ? 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have any recollection, before you left for 
Louisville on the night of the 23d or during the flight, that Nelson 
made any mention of an obligation he had in Florida the next day ? 

Mr. Hanman. I believe he did indicate that he had to get up early 
and go to Florida. That is all I recall about it. 

Mr. Sanders. You returned directly to Washington from Louisville ? 

Mr. Hanman. I believe that is right. 

Mr. Sanders. Did he come back into town from the airport with 
you, or did he fly on from National ? 

Mr. Hanman. I do not recall. 

Mr. Sanders. Without respect to time, without respect necessarily 
to the night of March 23 or 24, 1971, did you at any time — did you 
personally at any time — have any agreement or understanding with 
anyone that ADEPT or Mid- Am would make certain contributions 
to the reelection of the President in consideration with the adminis- 
trative decision more favorable than the one rendered on March 12? 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. Sanders. To your knowledge, did any other officials of ADEPT 
or Mid-Am have any such agreement or understanding ? 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. Sanders. To your knowledge, did any officials of AMPI or of 
Dairymen Inc., have any such understanding? 

Mr. Hanman. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Sanders. To turn it around, to put it the other way, do you have 
any information that would indicate that any officials of the Whit^e 
House or the Department of Agriculture indicated that they would be 
of assistance in obtaining a decision more favorable than the one on 
March 12, provided that certain contributions were made by any of 
the dairy co-ops ? 

Mr. Hanman. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Sanders. Or any person within the Committee To Re-Elect the 
President ? 

Mr, Hanman. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Sanders. Aside from contributions which might have been made 
by ADEPT to the Presidential campaign of Senator Humphrey in 
1972 or 1971, did Mid-Am to your knowledge provide any other con- 
tributions to his campaign ? 

M7'. Hanman. Run that by me again ? You are talking about Hum- 
phrey and Mid-Am ? 

Mr. Sanders. Yes. 



7746 

Mr. Hanman. Did we provide any money ? 

Mr. Sanders. Any moneys to the Presidential campaign of Senatoi 
Humphrey besides those that were furnished from tlie ADEPT 
account ? 

Mr. Hanman. Did Mid- Am contribute moneys? 

Mr. Sanders. Yes. 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. Sanders. Did Mid-Am provide any goods or services to the 
Presidential campaign of Senator Humphrey? 

Mr. Hanman. As I recall, there was one airplane trip that he was on. 

Mr. Sanders. What were the circumstances of that ? 

Mr. Hanman. Well, trying to recollect, I believe we had a call from 
his office and he had some speeches to make and wondered whether we 
would provide some transportation. And a fellow from my staff, Glen 
Davis, did go with him in a company plane. I do not know the date. I 
believe it was before the nomination of 1972. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you know where they traveled to ? 

Mr. Hanman, Somewhere in the Midwest. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you know who called from Senator Humphrey's 
office? 

Mr. Hanman. No, I do not. 

Mr. Sanders. That was the Mid-Am airplane ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you know of any other such flights ? 

Mr. Hanman. For Humphrey ? 

Mr. Sanders. Yes. 

Mr. Hanman. No. That is the only one I recall right now. 

Mr. Sanders. On the flight that you just mentioned, were those 
Presidential campaign appearances? 

Mr. Hanman. I really do not know whether they were Presidential 
candidate's appearances or not. He was making some speeches, I know 
that. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you know of any other goods or services provided 
to Senator Humphrey's Presidential campaign by Mid-Am? 

Mr. Hanman. Not that I recall, just that one. 

Mr. Sanders. Were any moneys or goods or services provided by 
Mid-Am, as opposed to ADEPT — provided to the Presidential cam- 
paign of Congressman Mills? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. T recall one plane trip that he was on. 

Mr. Sanders. Would you explain that ? 

Mr. Hanman. As I recall, it was a similar circumstance. We received 
a call wondering if we could provide some transportation, and our 
plane did fly somewhere in the Midwest again, and I believe Glen 
Davis of our staff did go on that trip with Mr. Mills. 

Mr. Sanders. Was the request from Congressman Mills, the congres- 
sional office, do you know ? 

Mr. Hanman. T really do not Icnow where the call came from. 

Mr. Sanders. Was it during the time that he was a Presidential 
candidate ? 

Mr. Hanman, Could you define that period ? 

Mr. Sanders. The draft Mills campaign began in about the summer 
of 1971. 



7747 

Mr. Hanman. Between then and when was it? When was the con- 
vention — August ? Yes, it would have been during that period. 

Mr. Sanders. Is that the only flight that you know of for Mills ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. Was that the Mid- Am corporate jet aircraft ? 

Mr. Hanman. Yes, the one that we had leased. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you know of any other moneys or goods or services 
provided for Congressman Mills ? 

Mr. Hanman. From Mid-Am ? 

Mr. Sanders. Yes. 

Mr. Hanman. None. 

Mr. Sanders. That is all T have. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Hanman, were you aware of meetings in March 
1971, or contacts during that period, between representatives of AMPI 
and people in the White House, other than the meeting with the Presi- 
dent ? 

Mr. Hanman. Only a vague recollection. I do not know of any 
specific meeting or who attended. 

Mr. Weitz. That would include Mr. Colson, for example. 

Mr. Hanman. I do not know whether I ever heard his name men- 
tioned. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Kalmbach, who would not have been in the admin- 
istration, or who would have been a Republican fundraiser at that 
time ? 

Mr. Hanman. No, I do not believe his name came up. 

Mr. Weitz. Therefore, if the record indicates, or if there is evi- 
dence, that there were meetings between AMPI i-epresentatives and, 
say, Mr. Colson and Mr. Kalmbach during that period, you were not 
told, either of the meetings or the substance of the meetings? 

Mr. Hanman. That is right. 

Mr. Weitz. I have no further questions — excuse me, I do have one 
further question. 

The same question would apply to Secretary Connally. Are you 
aware of any contacts or meetings in March of 1971. between AMPI 
representatives or their lawyers and Secretary Connally ? 

Mr. Hanman. My recollection is, Jacobsen did indicate at one meet- 
ing I was at, that he had talked to Connally. 

Mi-. Weitz. Do you recall where you were when this meeting took 
place, the meeting with Jacobsen ? 

Mr. Hanman. As I recall, it was in the Madison Hotel. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall who else was present ? 

Mr. Hanman. As I recall, it was in the AMPI suite of rooms, and 
Jake did come in when I was there and said that he had talked, that 
he had come back from talking to Connally. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall when this occurred ? 

Mr. Hanman. t do not know whether it was before or after the first 
decision. 

Mr. Weitz. And were Nelson and Parr there ? 

Mr. Hanman. My recollection is, one of them was there, maybe both 
of them. 

Mr. Weitz. How about Bob Lilly ? Was he there ? 

Mr. Hanman. I cannot testify about whether he was there or not. 
As I recall, the instance was when Jake had come back from this 
meeting and he was reporting to Harold and/or Dave. 



7748 

Mr. Weitz. What did he report? 

Mr. Hanman. He reported that he had talked to Connally, Connally 
understood our problem and was sympathetic to the problem, and 
would talk to the President about it. 

Mr. Weitz. You do not recall whether it was before or after the 
Secretary's decision on March 12? 

Mr. Hanman. No, I do not. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there an attempt to reach, get information to, or 
talk to the President about this before the 12th, or was the emphasis 
with regard to the administration mostly on the Secretary of 
Agriculture ? 

Mr. Hanman. We had prepared a position paper, as you know, 
on the economic justification for the price support, and that was 
presented, as I recall, to the Secretary. And I think an effort was made 
to get that to the President. I think we mailed some copies of it to 
the President. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Harrison do that? 

Mr. Hanman. I do not know. I believe he mailed it to him. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any discussion at that meeting about con- 
tributions — the meeting where Jacobsen reported back? 

Mr. Hanman. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall any meeting at which contributions were 
discussed in connection with the assistance of Secretary Connally? 

Mr. Hanman. No. The only time that I have ever talked to Mr. 
Connally or had any meeting with respect to contributions was after 
he was organizing the Democrats for Nixon. 

Mr. Weitz. How about without Mr. Connally present, but with 
Jacobsen present, or with others of the dairy co-ops about contribu- 
tions and the assistance of Secretary Connally in the price-support 
matter ? 

Mr. Hanman. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Dorsen. Since you testified in November 1973 before this com- 
mittee, has your recollection been refreshed as to any other events than 
the events to which you have testified here today ? 

Mr. Hoecker. Regarding political contributions ? 

Mr. DoRSEN. Regarding his earlier testimony. 

Mr. Hanman. No ; not that I recall. I was trying to think what I 
read in the papers. I do not recall anything. 

Mr. Dorsen. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Weitz. We have no further questions. 

Thank you, Mr. Hanman. We will recess for today. 

[Whereupon, at 3 :50 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
was adjourned.] 



FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington^ D.C. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m., in 
room G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building. 

Present: Senator Talmadge. 

Also present : David Dorsen, assistant chief counsel ; Alan S. Weitz, 
assistant majority counsel; Donald Sanders, deputy minority counsel. 

Senator Talmadge. Phil, raise your right hand please. Do you 
solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give the Select Committee 
to Investigate Presidential Irregularities in the Campaign Year of 
1972 shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God 'I 

Mr. Campbell. I do. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Campbell, I think the record ought to first reflect 
that you have been interviewed informally by the staff on October 3, 
1973, and also January 8, 1974. We thank you for your returning at 
our request for this session. 

In that regard, I don't believe we are going to cover all of the points 
we have gone over with you before, but ratner focus on certain par- 
ticular events. 

TESTIMONY OF J. PHIL CAMPBELL, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. Campbell. All right. 

Mr. Weitz. I would like also to indicate — off the record. 

[Discussion, off the record.] 

Mr. Weitz. Back on the record. 

In connection with the private cvvW action of Nader v. Butz in the 
Federal District Court in the District of Columbia, you executed an 
affidavit on March 10, 1972. Is this a copy of your affidavit ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. I Avould like to enter that as exhibit 1 to your testimony 
today and that, of course, covers many of the points relating to this 
matter. 

[Whereupon, the affidavit referred to was marked Campbell exhibit 
No. 1.*] 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Campbell, I take it you were familiar and are famil- 
iar \\\i\\ the Associated Milk Producere, Inc. ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

* Seep. 7791. 

(7749) 



7750 

Mr. Weitz. There are also several others, namely, the Mid- America 
Dairymen, Inc., and Dairymen, Inc. ? Those are three dairy coopera- 
tives ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. And I take it also you are familiar with and have met 
one or more times with several of them, at least some of them, with 
the now past leadere of those cooperatives, including Harold Nelson 
and David Parr ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Would that also include Gary Hanman ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't identify the name immediately. I met with 
several diiferent people at different times, and I don't remember that 
name specifically, but there were some people that I met in Assistant 
Secretary Dick Lyng's office one time that included all three of these 
co-ops. I don't remember the specific names, though. I remember that 
name but I don't exactly identify who he was with. 

Mr. Weitz. He is an executive with Mid-America Dairymen and I 
believe records in our possession as well as his testimony indicate he 
met with you at least on one occasion. 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I am sure he was probably in the group if he 
is one of their high-level people because, as I remember, all three of 
them came down once and I don't even remember what year or day 
it was that we met in Assistant Secretai-y Lyng's office. I could have 
seen him on other occasions, too. But I don't remember specifically. 

Mr. Weitz. Now in connection with the milk price-support matter 
in March 1971, did you have occasion to meet with one or more of 
the dairy representatives before the Secretary's first decision on March 
12? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, I saw the dairymen regularly — well, not regu- 
larly, but I saw them on occasion here and there, and they were in 
town and out on occasion and they would call me or come by, but I 
can't give you any specific dates. Also. I was out meeting with dairy- 
men on speaking engagements that did not involve these thre& groups 
but other dairymen in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. So I was 
seeing dairymen on occasion and talking to them on occasion just in 
the pursuit of my business and on occasions when they came to town. 
But, as I say, I don't remember the dates. 

Mr. Weitz. In the course of your contacts with them and their con- 
tacts with others at the Department of Agriculture prior to March 12. 
1971, was it your understanding that they had urged an increase of 
milk price supports and had pressed their various arguments in favor 
of an increase? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. And did they do so with you as well as others ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. And their arguments to support an increase included 
reference to an increased cost to dairy farmers ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. I take it your position, before the first decision and at 
the time of the first decision, was of concern over the fact that an in- 
crease would cause overproduction of milk for the coming year? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, and also — well, yes; that is essentially correct. 

Mr. Weitz. And I take it also that that was the concern of those in 
the Department who recommended no increase ? 



7751 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. And Secretary Hardin, as well as the other Directors 
of the Commodity Credit Corporation, concurred in that recommenda- 
tion? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes; it was a close call, though, because the dairy- 
men had had increased costs. There were arguments on both sides, but 
our judgment came down on the side against. 

Mr. Weitz. Before March 12, 1971, oefore the first decision was an- 
nounced, did you have any contact with anyone in the TVhite House 
on this matter ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, when you say White House, I am not sure. 
I know that we dealt with the 0"MB. 

Mr. Weitz. Who did you deal with there ? 

Mr. Campbell. I believe — I was trying to think of the name. 

Mr. Weitz. With Don Rice ? 

Mr. Campbell. Don Rice ? That is correct. And I don't know, but I 
))ossibly could have had one conversation with Secretary Shultz, but 
I don't know Avhether it was before or after the increase — when he 
wanted to know what the issues were. As I say, I don't know, but I 
possibly could have. 

Mr. Weitz. Before or after the increase or before or after the first 
decision ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, both. 

Mr. Weitz. I see. 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, both; but he wanted to know what the issues 
were, I believe. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it the position of Mr. Rice — or Dr. Rice — that they 
concurred, that the OMB concurred in the position of no increase? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

j\Ir. Weitz. Now you referred to the OMB. I take it there may also 
have been contacts with the Council of Economic Advisers? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall personally having had any contact, but 
I am cei'tain that possibly some of the people in the Department did, or 
I guess they did. You see, we have lower echelon working people that 
work with these people daily and I assume they did, but I don't recall 
personally liaving had any contact ; no. 

INIr. Weitz. Do you know whether the recommendation foi- no in- 
crease before the March 12 decision — do you know if that is reviewed 
by OMB as a regular matter ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes ; they review everything we do. 

Mr. Weitz. So therefore the recommendation of OMB from USDA 
in March 1971 was for no increase? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. That was concurred in ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes ; we always come to a mutual position. We don't 
move without their concurrence on anything and we have to meet with 
them. 

Mr. Weitz. How, apart from OMB and the CEA, what about the 
President's own staff, the Wliit« House staff — for example, people on 
the domestic council or Mr. Ehrlichman's staff or ]\Ir. Colson's staff ; 
did you have any contact with them prior to March 12? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remember any, very frankly. I could have, 
but I don't recall that I did. It is possible that I could have talked to 



7752 ! 

Mr. Ehrlichraan, but I do not recall whether I did or not; I really 
don't know. I do remember a conversation with Secretary Shultz. 
Well, he was not Secretary at that time 

Mr. Weitz. He was Director of 0MB ? 

Mr. Campbell. He was Director of OMB. 

Mr. Weitz. You had a conversation with him sometime in March 
and you are not sure whether it was before or after the first decision ? 

Mr. Campbell. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. Was anyone else present at that conversation ? 

Mr. Campbell. This was a telephone conversation. 

Mr. Weitz. And what was the purpose of this call ? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, he wanted to know the issues — what the issues 
were and what our position was, and, you know, it was the fear of 
overproduction, which would then impact on the Treasury. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any discussion during that conversation of 
the political impact of the decision ? 

Mr. Campbell. No; not that I recall. I don't recall discussing polit- 
ical impact with Secretary Shultz. No ; not than I can remember. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember discussing the political impact of the 
lirst decision — discussing it prior to the first decision — with anyone, 
either in USDA or in the White House ? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, well, in the USDA we — well, it depends on how 
you define "politics." IVe were well aware that they had the push on 
to increase the prices. They were pressuring us, as I have answered 
previously, to raise the prices. 

Mr. Weitz. Before the first decision ? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, yes. And then people from the Hill were also 
doing the same thing — the Members of Congress— and we were getting 
calls from dairymen here and there, not limited to these three groups, 
but from my own State and elsewhere, for example. They were press- 
ing their case to have the price raised. 

Mr. Weitz. And did you discuss that with anyone in the White 
House? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, I don't recall that I did, but I ]ust don't know. 
I don't recall discussing that particular pressure. I could have, but 
I don't recall it. I didn't have that many discussions with the AVTiite 
House, very frankly. 

Mr. Weitz. Did anyone in the Wliite House indicate that they were 
concerned about the pressure or the activity of the dairy people, or had 
other contacts and concerns, about this issue? 

Mr. Campbell. Prior to the decision ? 

Mr. Weitz. Yes. 

Mr. Campbell. No; not that I recall. They could have, but I don't 
recall. No ; not that I remember. As I say, I didn't have that many con- 
versations with them. I don't recall. I don't recall having that type 
of conversation ; no. 

Mr. Weitz. How about Mr. Chotiner ; did you have any contact with 
him about the price-support matter before March 12 ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall having one. no. I don't know the gen- 
tleman that well — don't know if I ever met li|im. I could have talked to 
him on the phone a time or two, but dcjn't recall any conversa- 
tion in regard to this. i 



7753 

Mr. "Weitz. Do you know whether Secretary Hardin had any such 
contacts prior to March 12 with anyone in the "\^Tiite House ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't know. No, I can't speak for him. I really don't 
know. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he discuss any of his contacts with you*? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I am sure ^^•e discussed generally — well, when 
you say the White House, you are separating it from the OMB ? 

Mr. Weitz. Yes. 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I just don't recall him discussing anything with 
me in that respect, although he could have. I just don't recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he indicate that he talked to the President about the 
decision before March 12 ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't recall that, no. 

Mr. Weitz. Was this a type of decision that normally, from your 
experience would have been reviewed by the President ? 

Mr. Campbell. No ; I don't think so. I don't know. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know whether Secretary Hardin — do you know 
whether he discussed with you, or did you otherwise know, whether 
he had requested that the President review this particular decision be- 
fore it was issued ? 

Mr. Campbell. If T did, I don't recall him ever telling me. I don't 
recall any such — no. I just don't recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, you have distinguished — or rather I have distin- 
guished between the White House and, for example, OMB. Do you 
know whether Secretary Hardin discussed this with Director Shultz or 
anyone from OMB or CE A ? 

Mr. Campbell. I am sure we discussed it with OMB, because any- 
thing that impacts on the budget we do discuss with them, and I would 
assume he did because I think we had a conference, as I said, with 
Don Rice. 

Mr. Weitz. About that conference, who was present at that? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't know. 

Mr. Weitz. Was Stcietaiy Hardin present? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remember. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you ? 

Mr. Campbell. I would assume I was. I don't remember, very frank- 
ly, who was there. I don't really remember the conference, but it is on 
the schedule, and in my office the records show that I was there, but 
I don't remember the conference. I do Ivuow that it is routine procedure 
for us to go over all of these with OMB, and I am certain we did. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall from your records what date that confer- 
ence took place ? 

Mr. Campbell. No ; I don't. It can be ascertained. 

Mr. Weitz. Would you ? Would you do that when you return, and 
provide us the date of that conference ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. The date of the Don Rice conference ? 

Mr. Weitz. Yes, and indicate in your notes those who attended and 
where it took place. 

Mr. Campbell. OK. It was doubtlessly over in his office in the Ex- 
ecutive Office Building, but I will find out. 



7754 

Mr. Weitz. Now I have here a copy of the docket that was prepared 
in connection with the March 12 decision not to increase the price- 
sui^port level.* This is already an exhibit to an affidavit in our records 
and I won't enter it as an exhibit, but I do want to ask you a question 
about it. Did you review or have anything to do with the preparation 
of the press release for March 12 announcing the decision? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall participating in that press release. 

Mv. Weitz. Would you have reviewed it or at least seen a copy of it ? 

]Mr. Campbell. I don't know. We have a system of OKing press re- 
leases and the assistant secretaries generally do that; if they are out 
of town, they may push them into my office, but I don't remember see- 
ing that one and I do not remember participating in the preparation 
of it. I did participate in the decisionmaking to keep the support price 
where it was. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, in the March 12 press release issued by the De- 
partment and reflecting the announcement by Secretary Hardin, 
after a discussion of the milk price-support matter, it refers to the 
fact that the Secretary had noted tliat the President had directed 
the Tariff Commission to review imports of certain cheese products. 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Was that considered at the same time in March, and 
earlier, as the price-support matter ? 

Mr. Campbell. The dairymen had been disturbed ever since we had 
been in office and prior to that in the preceding administration, they 
had been disturbed with the level of imports and that was always a 
const-ant topic of discussion, along with other matters, whenever the 
dairymen came in. That Avas one of the things that they were wanting 
to do — to close up the imports. And the imports Avere discussed 
and 

Mr. Weitz. With the dairy people? By the dairy people, I mean? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Was the fact that the announcement of a commencement 
of an investigation of the proper level of imports of certain cheese 
products — the fact that that would be announced together with the 
milk price-support matter — was that discussed with anvone in the 
^Vhite House or OMB ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't know. Not to my knowledge. I didn't have 
any sucli discussions that I can recall with the '\^niite House. It could 
have come up in the Don Rice discussion because the dairymen all had 
the push on with regard to the imports and we have to worry about 
this on all of our commodities. This isn't just peculiar to milk. 

Mr. Weitz. When I say discussions, I am also referring to any mem- 
orandums that were circulated to or from USDA. Do you recall any 
memorandums that refer to both of the matters together? 

Mr. Campbell. T don't recall. That doesn't say there was not one. but 
I don't recall seeing one. 

Mr. Weitz. Is it unusual to have a press release that refers to two 
se]>arate matters together ? 

Mr. Campbeix. No; I don't think so. I don't think that is unusual 
because this is one of the concerns of the daii-ymen and they had taken 
the previous administration over the rough path — to get the previous 
administration to close up some of the imports. 

♦ See p. 7847. 



7755 

This was a continuing issue that the dairymen pressed constantly, 
and they are also concerned with it today. So it is not unusual that that 
occurred, in my opinion. 

Mr. Weitz. No, not the announcement. My question is, was there 
anyone who linked 

Mr. Campbell. Linked the two together ? 

Mr. Weitz. Yes. 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall that there was. If there was, it didn't 
arouse any significance in my mind. It doesn't arouse any particular 
significance to me except it w^as an issue the dairymen were concerned 
about. 

Mr. Weitz. And you recall no discussion of issuing this part of the 
announcement as an offset or somehow to appease the dairy people for 
the adverse j)rice-support decision ? 

Mr. Campbell. No ; I don't recall that being discussed but I can see 
where that would be kind of a bone thrown to them, you know; it 
would appear that way, but I don't recall it being discussed in that 
context; no. 

Mr. Weitz. Now after — Sorry, did you want to add something? 

Mr. Campbell. I can say I personally would have been in favor of 
trying to close the imports to an extent because the imports we were 
receiving were highly subsidized and our dairy farmers have a very 
difficult time competing against highly subsidized imports from Eu- 
rope, where their govermnents, out of their treasuries, subsidize them. 
I would personally be in favor of doing that for that reason because 
the dairj'men in America operate at a disadvantage against imports 
highly subsdized by their governments. 

Mr. Weitz. Between March 12 and 23, that is, between the time 
of the announcement of the first decision and the meetings with the 
President and dairy people and his advisers on March 23, was there 
any review of the economic merits of the first decision in the USDA ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, the only way I can answer that is that things 
are constantly at our attention. We are aware of situations. We had 
the corn blight the year before. We knew the dairymen were in a 
bind on cost. And there was, as I said, a close decision there. 

I don't recall any specific meeting where we did this, but we had 
tlie cost figures already as to the situation with the increased cost 
to the dairymen because of the corn blight the preceding year which 
had shortened the corn supply and raised their concentrate price. 
We had these figures; and, of course, we were well aware of the fact 
that the cost had gone up. We keep these figures on a day-to-day, 
ongoing basis. 

Mr. Weitz. You mentioned that the first decision was a close 
decision. Can you name anyone in USDA who favored an increase? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I cannot. You see, the real issue was whether or 
not the market price, which had already escalated into the $4.90 
range — the question was whether or not that market price would be 
sufficient to sustain the dairymen rather than us also raising the sup- 
port price above the $4.66 level. And we were of the opinion that 
the market price should be adequate without us moving the support 
price. I don't recall anyone in the Department opposing that de- 
cision. There could have been some that disagreed, but I don't recall 
any that did, just now. 



7756 

Mr. Weitz. Between the 12th and 23d, can you tell us who en- 
gaged or who you were aware of was reviewing the wisdom of the 
first decision? 

Mr. Campbell. I can't tell you anyone who got down and took 
statistics and laid them out on a table and did it. It had to be a mental 
review because we already knew what the facts were. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, did you discuss this with anyone? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall any particular discussion, no ; I do not. 

Mr. Weitz. So to your knowledge if anyone was reviewing it, it 
would have been indiA-idually and it is your surmise that they were 
reviewing it? 

Mr. Campbell. That is right. And I am sure I had conversations, 
you know, with others in the Department, the Secretary, but I can't 
recall specific coiiA^ersations. It was just a daily subject. We talked 
about it off and on because these dairymen really had the push on 
and after the decision on the 12th, the pressure on the Hill increased 
considerably. 

Mr. Weitz. In that period between the 12th and the 23d. did you 
have any contacts with anyone in the White House on this matter ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall any, no. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know iwhether Secretary Hardin did ? 

Mr. Campbell. He could have but I don'it remember. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, this meeting with Mr. Ehrjichman or this dis- 
cussion 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't know anything aibout his schedule. I 
don't recall what meetings the Secretary had. 

Mr. Weitz. No, I am saying, I think you indicated you may have dis- 
cussed this matter at some point in March with Mr. Ehrlichman. Was 
that discussion during this period ? 

Mr, Campbell. I could have. I don't remember whether I did or 
not. I was saying it was a possibility. I was trying to think of the 
names I possibly could have talked to — George Shultz, I am positive 
I did have a telephone conversation ,with ; Don Rice, acicordihg to the 
logbooks — we did have a meeting with him ; and there is a possibility 
that I talked with John Ehrlichman, but I don't know that I did. I 
wont say whether I did or did not, but if I did talk with somebody 
else, it might have been him. 

Mr. Weitz. Wliat about John AVhitaker, his assistant ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, John was our contact over in the Domestic 
Council. I am sure John knew what was going on. I don't know who 
he had conversations witli. I don't know whether I talked to John. He 
was our contact, so he had daily conversations with people in the 
Department I am svire. 

Mr. Weitz. The same question for Charles Colson — any contact with 
him? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall any contact with him. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you see any memorandum from Mr. Colson, or 
reviewed by Mr. Colson. and circulated ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall. I was just going to add that as far as 
my decision Avas concerned, I was still out making speeches — telling 
the dairymen "Don't do this," during that period of time. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know Avhether Secretary Hardin had such con- 
tacts as I questioned you about ? 



7757 

Mr. Campbell. No, I do not. 

Mr. Weitz. That would be for the period of the 12th to the 24th. 

Mr. Campbell. That is right. I do not know. 

Mr. Weitz. I believe you said that you were making some speeches in 
March with regard to the dairy farmers' position ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. What was your position and what was the essence of 
5'^our speeches that you were making? 

Mr. Campbell. Well my position was that history, for the past 20 
years, had shown that when the support price was escalated to too high 
a level, it automatically stimulated over-production which got the 
dairy farmers in trouble with surpluses which it usually took 4 or 5 
years to get rid of. And as a result of the buildup of surpluses twice 
previously before this administration, the Department had had to 
actually lower the prices because of the surpluses after they had raised 
the prices, and I was urging them to look at history and "Let's not 
do this again by raising this support and possibly having you over- 
produce, which will then cause the Department to have to lower it, 
as happened twice in the two preceding administrations — one each." 
And I was trying to urge them, "Let's learn something from the history 
of the past," and that the market price already was substantially up. 

Mr. Weitz. In that regard, let me show you a press release from the 
Deartment of Agriculture, which I would like to mark as exhibit 2. 
It is a copy, or excerpts from a speech you gave at State College, Penn- 
sylvania, March 22, 1971. Is that a copy of that release reflecting 
excerpts from your speech ? 

[WTiereupon, the document referred to was marked Campbell ex- 
hibit No. 2.*] 

Mr. Campbell. Yes ; I am sure it is. The first paragraph sure looks 
like it. Yes ; this is a copy. 

Mr. Weitz. And that substantially reflects the position you just 
discussed? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes ; that is correct. • 

Mr. Weitz. Wasn't there, in fact, a concern on the part of the Admin- 
istration that if there was to be an increase in either 1971 or 1972, it 
should come in 1972, during an election year, rather than a decrease 
in 1972? 

Mr. Campbell. I didn't hold that viewpoint. If anybody else did, I 
don't know about that. 

Mr. Weitz. No one discussed that with you ? 

Mr. Campbell. I wouldn't say they didn't, but I mean if they did, I 
didn't accept it. I didn't think that was — I mean, it could have been 
discussed with me but I didn't hold that. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know who may have discussed that? 

Mr. Campbell. No ; I don't. But I didn't, as I say, accept that. The 
speech is the proof of that. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, the position you just said is — your fear was that 
an increase one year, in fact, would lead to overproduction, which 
would lead to a decrease in some subsequent year. 

Mr. Campbell. Yes ; but not necessarily the immediately following 
year, because dairy production doesn't change that quickly. It is not 
a cash crop where you can plant it in the spring and greatly expand 

*See p. 7801. 



7758 

production. You don't get the buildup that fast. You have to increase 
the number of cows and expand 

Mr. Weitz. But if — sorry, go ahead. 

Mr. Campbell. I was thinking of the dairymen and their welfare. 
I wasn't thinking of the political impact. 

Mr. Weitz. Did anyone else ever seem to take the other aspect into 
consideration — the political impact on the election ? 

Mr. Campbell. At what period ? When ? 

Mr. Weitz. In March of 1971. Let's take up to March 23, at this 
point, and then later. 

Mr. Campbell. I don't know that anyone in the Department took 
that viewpoint. If they did, I am not aware of it. I don't recall any- 
body putting any pressure on me because of that, or anybody else ; no. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware of any such position or arguments 
from the "Wliite House ? 

Mr. Campbell. I was not aware of anyone in the White House 
putting any pressure on at that time ; no, I Avas not. 

Mr. Weitz. Besides putting on pressure, though, did anyone state 
that position or discuss that possibility ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall it. I don't recall they did. They could 
have, but if they did, I don't recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know Marion Harrison ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he take that position ? 

Mr. Campbell. I am sure he did because he was representing — 
legally, I mean — some of the dairy groups. He was pressing their 
cause the same as the dairymen. 

Mr. Weitz. And one of the arguments he made was the adverse 
impact of a decrease the following year ? 

Mr. Campbell. No ; he didn't take that position on that point. His 
position was just for an increase — let's increase. No, to me, as I 
recall, he never made that statement. 

Mr. Weitz. And did you ever see any letters from him that re- 
flected that argument ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall any. He could have done it, but I 
don't recall it. If he did, I don't recall. You see, if anybody gave that 
to me, I w^as so much on the other side of the fence, I didn't accept 
it. I did not accept it. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall attending a meeting at Mr. Ehrlichman's 
office on March 19,'l971 ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't. Could have, but I don't recall. 

Mr. Weitz. A meeting to discuss the price-support matter? 

Mr. Campbell. No ; I could have, but I don't remember. 

Mr. Weitz., Do you remember a meeting sometime during the 
period of March or prior to March 23 at which 

Mr. Campbell. When I say "I could have" 

Mr. Weitz. Just a second. A meeting that Mr. Ehrlichman attended, 
together with Secretary Hardin and Director Shultz? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall it, but I could have. I just don't recall 
it. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall Secretary Hardin, if you did not attend, 
reporting back to you about such a meeting ? 

Mr. Campbell. No; I don't recall, but I still can't say it didn't 
occur. I just don't remember. 



7759 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall Secretary Hardin discussing with you 
any of his contacts or meetings or conversations with anyone in the 
AVhite House or 0MB prior to March 23? 

Mr. Campbell. No; I don't recall any conversation. There could 
have been, but I don't recall any. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he do so, even if you don't recall the specifics of the 
conversation ? 

Mr. Campbell. I just don't know. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember attending a meeting on the morning 
of March 23 with the President and the dairy leaders? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Prior to that meeting, you had sent over to Mr. Whit- 
aker proposed opening remarks for the President. Is that correct? 

Mr. Campbell. I am not sure I did that. I don't know. I may have 
transmitted it, but I didn't prepare it. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Assistant Secretary Lyng prepare that ? 

Mr. Campbell. I think that is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. At whose request ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't know who requested it. 

Mr. Weitz. If it was sent to Mr. Whitaker, would Mr. Whitaker 
have requested it ? 

Mr. Campbell. I think — I am trying to recall to the best of my 
memory, and I am not sure, but it seems to me I do recall Assistant 
Secretary Lyng bringing it to me and showing it to me. And I didn't 
prepare it and I don't know whether I transmitted it or whether he 
transmitted it. It was his memo. And I don't remember who trans- 
mitted it. I may have or he may have. I don't recall. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall whether there was any reference in the 
memorandum, in the proposed remarks, to the political impact of the 
decision ? 

Mr. Campbell. No ; I don't recall exactly what was in the memo. I 
do not. I know he prepared one, but I don't recall exactly what was 
in it. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, this meeting on the 23d, of course, had been sched- 
uled several weeks and had been discussed months beforehand? 

Mr. Campbell. That is right. 

Mr. Weitz. But it did come 11 days after the adverse decision, from 
the dairy people's point of view ? 

Mr. Weitz. Now was there any discussion or were you aware of any 
consideration of canceling the meeting because of the adverse decision ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I had nothing to do with setting the meeting up, 
or at least I don't remember having any conversations with regard to 
setting up the meeting or canceling it, either one. Somebody else made 
those arrangements. 

Mr. Weitz. But did anyone discuss with you, or mention to you, the 
possibility that that was considered ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall that they did, but it is possible. I don't 
remember it. 

Mr. Weitz. What was your understanding of the position of the 
administration that would be taken vis-a-vis the dairy people, at the 
meeting on the 23d ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well I don't think we established — do you mean 
prior to the meeting or during the meeting? 



7760 

Mr. Weitz. No ; in other words, in entering the meeting — going into 
the meeting. 

Mr. Campbell. What was the purpose of the meeting? 

Mr. Weitz. No; the meeting had been arranged sometime before- 
hand 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. The meeting, however, occurred during a period when 
the dairy people were actively seeking an increase that the adminis- 
tration, 11 days before, had not granted them. My question is : What 
was your understanding — what did you and Secretary Hardin under- 
stand or discuss as to the position that the President and the adminis- 
tration people would take with regard to the price-support matter in 
meeting with the dairy people on the 23d ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, our position was still that we were sticking by 
our original decision and that this was a courtesy meeting as far as 
we were concerned. 

Mr. Weitz. In other words, your understanding was that the meet- 
ing would be used, to the extent it referred to price supports, to more 
or less defend and try to win over the dairy people to your point of 
view ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I didn't take it in that context. The context in 
which I took it was that the President had invited them many months 
before, while we were in Chicago at a meeting, by a long-distance 
telephone call from San Clemente, to Secretary Hardin and to Harold 
Nelson on the stage, before we went out to the meeting of the dairy- 
men who were assembled there. So I didn't consider the meeting in 
any other light other than that the President had said : "Get some of 
your leaders together and bring them down to see me." 

And to me the meeting was held for that purpose — as a courtesy 
call of the dairymen being able to come in and meet with the President. 
And I did not view the meeting as one to — of course I expected the 
dairymen to try to make an argument at the meeting, but I did not 
consider the meeting as one to change our decision, but merely as a 
courtesy call of the dairymen to present their arguments. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, as you say yourself and as the White House has 
discussed in its own white paper, the meeting was first discussed or 
mentioned many months before JNIarch 23 and it had been delayed and 
it had taken a numbei- of months to arrange it. 

Now, it being originally scheduled as it was right at the peak period 
Avhen the dairy people were seeking an increase, partly on the Hill and 
perhaps still in the administration, was there any discussion that you 
imdei^tood to have taken place to either delay the meeting or, on the 
other hand, to vigorously defend the administration's position at the 
meeting ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't recall any of that appearing. All I recall 
was that the, meeting had been set up maybe 60 daj's or 4, 5, or weeks 
prior to the date it was actually held and that it was a courtesy call. 

I don't remember any effort to cancel the meeting or any effort to 
use it as a meeting to defend our position, although I did expect the 
dairymen to press foi- their position. At the same time, very frankly, 
in the meeting I argued against them. 

]\Ir. Weitz. In other words, you did defend the first decision? 

Mr. Campbell. I did, yes. 



7761 

Mr. Weitz. Did you discuss that with Secretary Hardin before you 
went into the meeting, knoAving that the dairymen would, in fact, press 
their position ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall I did, but he and I were very close and 
like minded, and I didn't feel compelled to discuss it Avith him because 
I know his views. 

Mr. Weitz. And no one in the White House, knowing the dairy- 
men would press their position and that you Avould be there and had 
contrary views — no one in the White House checked with you and no 
one in ITSDA checked about Avhat sliould be said or what position 
should be taken ? 

Mr. Campbell. I think that is probably when Secretary Shultz 
called me to find out what the issues were, to refresh his memory. 

Mr. Weitz. Prior to the March 23 meeting ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes ; I think that was the call Avhen he asked what 
the issues were. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Director Shultz defend the position or state any 
position at the meeting? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I don't recall Secretary Shultz saying any- 
thing other than — because I could talk their language so well, he 
turned around and complimented me on my ability to talk the dairy- 
men's language. This is the only remarks I remember him making. 

Mr. Weitz. Did the President discuss the price-support matter? 
Did he defend the position? Did he address himself to it? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't recall the President getting into that at 
all, and we certainly hoped he would not; I mean, that was my per- 
sonal hope. I say "we" meaning I, personally, hoped he wouldn't, 
and he didn't. 

He just had pleasantries and casual conversation and told them — 
as I recall, he told the dairymen before he ever goes to bed at night 
he drinks a glass of milk. That Avas all I remember the President say- 
ing, really. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he then ask you to comment on their position ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't think the President called on me for any- 
thing. I think I voluntarily spoke for Avhate\'er I had to say. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he have any comment on either their position or 
your comments? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall that he did. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he stay for the entire meeting? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, yes ; that was the purpose of the meeting. I think 
Ave all got out just as soon as he got out. 

Mr. Weitz. Did the President indicate that he would reconsider the 
position, or he Avas reconsidering the position, or that he Avould dis- 
cuss it Avith his aides or anything of that nature? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall him saying anything like that. I don't 
recall that he did. 

Mr. Weitz. So as far as you understood, nothing had changed as a 
result of the meeting ? 

Mr. Campbell. No. 

Mr. Weitz. As a result of the meeting Avith the President ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, not then ; no. 

Mr. Weitz. And at the time of the morning meeting with the Presi- 
dent, you did not know of an afternoon meeting — of a scheduled after- 
noon meeting; with the President ? 



7762 

Mr. Campbell. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you, in fact, have any knowledge that a reconsider- 
ation was underway, or that the price supports would be increased ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, T had the knowledge of the terrific pressure 
on the Hill. But no, I had no knowledge that I was fully aware of, 
being in public life as long as I have and being an elected official pre- 
viously, but the pressure on the Hill was building and building 

Mr. Weitz. But no one — sorry. 

Mr. Campbell. They were actually pushing for 90 percent — a good 
many of the Members of the Hill were pushing for that, rather than 
the 85 percent, to which we did eventually raise the price. 

Mr. Weitz. How many bills asked for a minimum of 90 percent? 

Mr. Campbell. There were some, I know. The Congressman that I 
remember specifically was Congressman Ed Jones on the Agriculture 
Committee from Tennessee who said that 85 percent is not enough. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he sponsor a bill for 90 percent ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall, but he was on the committee and was 
pressing for 90 percent. He could have held a hearing, but I don't 
remember. 

Mr. Weitz. Before the 23d ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I don't know when. 

Mr. Weitz. So in light of this terrific pressure, you didn't discuss the 
matter — you don't recall specifically discussing the matter with either 
Secretary Hardin or anyone in the White House ? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, well, T am sure that in our conversations casu- 
ally around in the Department where we see each other every day we 
discussed the buildup on the Hill, and I was aware that the Hill niight 
actually, you know, force a change; but I considered it from that 
direction rather than from other directions. 

Mr. Weitz. But you didn't discuss it with anyone or you are not 
aware of any discussions between Secretary Hardin and anyone in the 
White House with respect to an administrative change, as opposed to 
a legislative increase? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't know that he did. He could have, I don't 
know. Wlien you get into a battle of this type with the Congress, it is a 
question of whether you fight it out to the bitter end or whether you 
seek some in-beween position or whether you give in totally to Con- 
gress. We have this type of thing happen on a regular basis. It isn't 
peculiar just to this case. 

Mr. Weitz. You attended the afternoon meeting with the President ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. When did you first learn of that meeting? 

Mr. Campbell. Wlien Secretary Hardin called and asked me to go 
over with him. 

Mr. Weitz. And that was just preceding the meeting ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, and I don't know the exact time, but it was an 
afternoon meeting. 

Mr. Weitz. I believe the records show that the meeting was sched- 
uled for 4:45. How much before that time did you learn of the 
meeting ? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, just a few minutes before we got into the cor- 
ridor to go over. 

Mr. Weitz. Did it come as a surprise to you ? 



7763 

Mr. Campbell. Yes ; I was busy working at my desk and I got a call 
from the Secretary and he said : '"'Come over and go with me,'' and any 
call from the Secretary to me to accompany him, when I am very busy 
and it is not on my calendar, is a little bit of a surprise, because I am 
busy working. I mean, I have had that happen to me. 

Mr. Weitz. What did he tell you was the purpose of the meeting? 

Mr. Campbell. To discuss the dairy situation — the dairy price situa- 
tion. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he indicate that the President was considering re- 
versing his position ? 

Mr. Campbell, No; well, I will have to say I don't recall it. I don't 
know whether he did say it or not. I do not recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. Who else attended the meeting? 

Mr. Campbell. As I remember, the President was there and Secre- 
tary Hardin and I was there and George Shultz and John Connally 
and one or two others, and I just never have ever been able to remem- 
ber who these other two were. 

Mr. Weitz. Was Dr. Eice there ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remember, but he probably was, but I am 
not sure. 

Mr. Weitz. How about John Whitaker ? 

Mr. Campbell. He could have been there, but I don't know that 
either. I can't identify the others. There are the ones I definitely re- 
member being present that I stated to you, but there were, I think, two 
more people. 

Mr. Weitz. On the way to the meeting, what did you discuss with 
Secretary Hardin ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I don't recall Avhat we discussed, very frankly. 

Mr. Weitz. I would assume you would discuss price supports, the 
price support ? 

Mr. Campbell. Probably, but as I say, I don't recall the conversation. 

Mr. Weitz. In fact that would have been, to your best recollection, 
the only meeting you had with the President about price supports? 

Mr. Campbell. The only one. I have only been in the President's 
presence not more than three or four times, except at social occasions. 

Mr. Weitz. But is it likely that you and Secretary Hardin reviewed 
your positions before you went into the meeting? 

Mr. Campbell. I am sure we probabl}^ did, but I just don't remember 
the conversations. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall if he indicated that he had discussed the 
l^ositions of others or that he had discussed his position with anyone 
else? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remember. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he indicate who had contacted him to set up the 
meeting ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't recall that either. 

Mr. Weitz. Would you tell us what transpired at the meeting? 

Mr. Campbell. Well it was a general meeting about the pressure 
from the Hill. It was a relatively short meeting, as I remember it, in 
which we discussed the extreme pressures from the Hill and the fact 
that the dairymen had reversed the previous Presidents, such as Presi- 
dent Johnson, on imports. That it was probably a better situation for 
us to raise it^ — to raise the support to 85 percent rather than 90 percent, 



7764 

rather than not take any action at all, because if we did not take action 
there was a dangler of Congress raising the support level to 90 percent, 
which would have been above the then market level, which was in the 
$4.90 range. If we could raise it to 85 percent, it would have little im- 
pact — the raising of the support level would have little impact on the 
Treasury, whereas if we did nothing and Congress were to take action 
and go to 90 percent, well then, that would have impact on the 
Treasury. 

This is what I remember, generally, about the meeting and the fact 
that very strong Members of Congress were involved. 

Mr. Weitz. How do you square that with the fact that only two of 
some 100 or so legislators have supported bills for a minimum of 90 
percent, and all of the rest were for 85 percent that had already been 
introduced ? 

Mr. Campbell. Just by my knowledge of how the Congress operates 
and what they do and what they have done in previous times when the 
dairymen usually got what they wanted from Congress. 

Mr. Weitz. So you are saying the bills that provided for 85 percent 
were not likely to pass, but only the two with the 90 percent ? 

Mr. Campbell. Knowing how Congress operates, I personally 
thought, when thy got into the committee and with Congressman Ed 
Jones wanting 90 percent, the others wouldn't resist it. I mean, they 
just don't resist the dairymen that greatly in Congress, according to 
past performance. 

Mr. Weitz. Isn't it easier not to resist when you introduce a bill than 
when you vote a bill in the committee ? In other words, if Congress was, 
in fact, supportive of a 90-percent level as a minimum, would they not 
have indicated their support, at least by way of supporting a bill's 
introduction, for 90 percent, rather than supporting a bill at 85 per- 
cent and working for a higher level in the committee or on the floor ? 
Mr. Campbell. I can't argue with that, because this is a matter of 
judgment as to how things work on the Hill. I have been on the legis- 
lative body and I have dealt with the legislative bodies for- the past 
20 years, and in my judgment when the committee got down to its 
deliberations within the committee, with the corn blight we had the 
year before, with the escalated seed cost, I just think — to my knowl- 
edge of how it operates. I would predict that they would probably 
have gone to 90 percent. That doesn't mean they would. This is just a 
judgment. I can't argue the point with you. 

Mr. Weitz. ^Yho made that point, by the way? Did you make the 
point in the meeting with the President? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall who made what points. It Avas a gen- 
eral discussion of all of the people present. 
[Discussion off the record.] 
Mr. Weitz. OK ; 5-minut6 recess. 
[Recess.] 

Mr. Weitz. Aside from the specific points made by each individual, 
could you tell us who, of the people you mentioned at the meeting, 
favored an increase, or what positions were taken generally by the 
people present? 

Mr. Campbell. We didn't really have any argument about it. We 
just all came to the conclusion verbally, as I remember, that we were 
in a bad position and that we could go to 85 percent and probably 



7765 

have no impact on the Treasury. It was better to do that than to fight 
it out in Congress and probably lose. 

Mr. Weitz. In that regard, by the way, you referred a number of 
times to the market price. Aside from the price-support increase that 
was then obtained in March of 1971, were you aware of allegations 
that AMPI had purchased cheese in February to drive up the price 
prior to their effort to 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, I heard someone in the Department say that and 
I don't know who said it, but I did hear that. 

Mr. Weitz. If that were true, that would have some impact on the 
viability of the market price aside from an increase ? 

Mr. Campbell. If they were able to purchase enough. I do not know 
whether they did purchase enougli to have that impact, 

Mr. Weitz. Now, at the meeting in the afternoon with the Presi- 
dent, do you recall any reference to the political power or lobbying 
power of the dairy people? 

Mr. Campbell. That is what we were talking about ; yes. 

Mr. Weitz. And did Mr. Connally talk about that? 

Mr. Campbell. I think everybody in the room did. And I am sure 
he did too. I don't remember specifically what he said, but I think I 
recall that being his position. That was everybody's position. None of 
us denied they had that power. No one argued and said they don't 
have it. 

Mr. Weitz. The power included their lobbying effort on the Hill. 
Did it also have some impact on the 1972 compaign ? In other words, 
was that discussed ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall that that was discussed. I don't recall. 
It may have been, but I don't recall that was discussed. 

Mr. Weitz. That would be a natural corroUary, though ? 

Mr. Campbell. It would be natural that it would be discussed, but I 
don't recall it being discussed. 

Mr. Weitz. Wliat about campaign contributions; were they dis- 
cussed ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall any campaign contributions being dis- 
cussed. 

Mr. Weitz. In any context ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. And the fact that the white paper says that they were 
discussed with regard to congressional candidates — you don't remember 
that? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't, but I am not saying they were not dis- 
cussed, but I don't recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. You don't recall Secretary Connally referring to their 
contribution activity or their contribution potential? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't recall that. 

Mr. Weitz. Did anyone else refer to that ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't recall that. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware of that ? 

Mr. Campbell. Of what? 

Mr. Weitz. Of their contribution activity ? 

Mr. Campbell. To whom ? 

Mr. Weitz. Their contribution activity in general, whether to the 
President or elsewhere ? 



7766 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir, I was aware of that ; sure. I was aware of 
it through the press primarily. I wasn't aware of it personally in that 
I was not involved in any at that time, with regard to the Members on 
the Hill anyway, but I was aware they were out and around. Every- 
body knew they were out and 

Mr. Weitz. You had discussed this more directly with David Parr, 
hadn't you? You were aware, though, aside from the press? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, they made a lot of wild statements which I 
paid no attention to. 

Mr. Weitz. What were they? Wliat were some of those? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, "These are the things Ave want," and "We want 
to go all out for President Nixon. We were on Humphrey's side before 
but we want to go all out for Nixon now." And they said : "We want 
to contribute to his campaign," and I remember them saying some- 
thing about $2 million. Well, that was so up in the blue that I couldn't 
conceive of that. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall when that was first mentioned? Do you 
recall when this series of conversations took place ? 

Mr. Campbell. Every time they came to town they would give us the 
same arguments: "We want to be for President Nixon. We want 
imports restricted. We want price supports." Ind so on. They would 
tick off the things they wanted, but I didn't pay any attention to that 
as evidenced by my position. I mean, they were beyond me. I mean, I 
wouldn't even discuss it with them when they would talk about that. 
I would just talk about something else. I never discussed this with 
them. It was a matter of one-way talk on their part. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know, when they discussed their intention to 
support the President and contribute large amounts of money — do you 
know whether they discussed that with anyone in the White House ? 

Mr. Campbell. No; I do not, and frankly I don't remember when 
they said it. I mean, it was mentioned but I didn't take it seriously, 
frankly. 

Mr. Weitz. lYhy? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, it wasn't my business. 

Mr. Weitz. Well it may not have influenced your decision, but you 
said you didn't take it seriously. I am asking you why you didn't take 
it seriously. 

Mr. Campbell. Well, that Avasn't in my arena. I Avasn't in that busi- 
ness and I wasn't going to have anything to do Avith anything of that 
nature. 

Mr. Weitz. But there Avas nothing that led you to question their 
seriousness though ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, they Avere doing a lot of loose talk and I dis- 
counted it. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you know if they made the same talk Avith Charles 
Colson? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir, I don't know. 

Mr. Weitz. And did Secretary Hardin ever discuss this Avith you or 
was he ever present during any of these conversations ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall that he did, but I am sure, doubt- 
lessly — well, I am sure that I mentioned to Secretary Hardin, and I 
can't remember specifically when and on what occasions, but I am sure 
I did, because I kept him as totally informed as I possibly could, so I 
might have mentioned it to him. 



7767 

Mr. Weitz. These conversations were in 1970 and 1971, preceding 
March of 1971? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes ; and I am sure I did mention it, although I can't 
remember doing it. 

Mr. Weitz. Didn't you also discuss with David Parr some particular 
contributions that you suggested his group make ? 

Mr. Campbell. Not at that time. 

Mr. Weitz. Not at what period ? 

Mr. Campbell. During this period. 

Mr. Sanders. Does this relate to the Presidential campaign 
activities ? 

Mr. Weitz. I think it is relevant to indicate whether or not he in fact 
did, from time to time, discuss more than wild speculation or allega- 
tions with respect to their contribution activities without getting into 
specifics. 

Mr. Sanders. Of course I can't prevent you from asking the ques- 
tion, but I think you know very well that contribution does not relate 
to the 1972 Presidential campaign, and I think that is clearly beyond 
the mandate of this committee. Now you can go ahead and do what you 
want to. 

Mr. Weitz. Is it not true that you have discussed particular con- 
tributions with representatives of the dairy co-ops ? 

Mr. Campbell. I relayed one request in 1970 to them — one only. It 
wasn't instigated by me. I received a call from someone in Georgia and 
I relayed the request and I left it at that. That is the only time. 

Mr. Weitz. Did that take place before or after Mr. Parr or others 
had indicated their intention to support the President ? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, I can't give you the time sequence. I don't know. 
But it didn't originate with me. I received a call from George request- 
ing financial help in the campaign and I relayed the request and that 
was all. 

Mr. Weitz. Was your motivation to relay it? Did that have any- 
thing to do with your understanding of their intention to contribute 
to the President's campaign ? 

Mr. Campbell. It had nothing to do with it because the President 
wasn't even in the campaign and I wasn't aware of any contributions 
to the President. 

Mr. Weitz. But were you aware at that time of Mr. Parr's 

Mr. Campbell. Let me just say here I do not remember the time 
sequence at all. 

Mr. Weitz. Did the President, at the afternoon meeting on the 23d, 
refer to the contribution activity of the dairy people ? 

Mr. Campbell. I do not recall if he did ; no. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he in any way refer to the 1972 campaign ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall that he did. 

Mr. Weitz. Did anyone else ? 

Mr. Campbell. I just don't recall that. It would be natural, possibly, 
that they did, but I do not recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he indicate 

Mr. Campbell. I might say the conversations that I recall primarily 
had to do with: "Can we hold our position? Is the Congress going 
to overcome us?" and "What can we do to have the least impact on 
the Federal Treasury ?" 



7768 

Mr. Weitz. What about the veto ? Was that discussed ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall that ; no. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, that would be relevant, wouldn't it? 

Mr. Campbell. As to whether he would or would not veto ? 

Mr. Weitz. Right. In other words, to hold the administration's posi- 
tion, it would make it more difficult to change it if he were to veto. 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall that being discussed. It could have been, 
but I don't recall that. 

Mr. Weitz. What about losing farm support in the 1972 campaign, 
was that discussed ? 

In other words, if he kept the position or exercised his veto — losing 
farm support. 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remember, but it could have been, I am 
sure ; I just don't remember it. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, the President could have vetoed the legislation. 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, sure, he could have vetoed it. 

Mr. Weitz. T\^iat would have been the impact of that on the 1972 
campaign? 

Mr. Campbell. I couldn't estimate. 

Mr. Weitz. And that wasn't discussed ? 

Mr. Campbell. Politics operates on a day-to-day basis, and I 
coukbi't analyze the impact on a campaign that far ahead; no. 

Mr. Weitz. Did anyone else in the meeting try to estimate the 
impact of that on the 1972 campaign ? 

Mr. Campbell. I just don't recall. I don't recall that type of con- 
versation. It could have occurred, but I just don't recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. How did the meeting — well, were there any other points 
that were made, that you can recall, that you haven't mentioned ? 

Mr. Campbell. No — well, I do recall something about someone 
making a statement — I thought, perhaps. Secretary Hardin — that 
we may have to sue AMPI. 

Mr. Weitz. May have to sue ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. For what ? 

Mr. Campbell. For antitrust action in the way they were operat- 
ing — running over some little dairy outfits down in the Southwest. 

Mr. Weitz. Had anyone brought that up before in the meeting? 

Mr. Campbell. No; I just remember that statement being made. 
And subsequently they were sued and that case is, I guess, currently 
being tried. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall w^hat the relevancy of his comment was, 
or what topic he raised it in ? 

Mr, Campbell. No. I think it was imparting information and, as 
I recall, I think he made the remark to someone before we sat down — 
when we first came in the meeting, as I recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. Whom did he say that to ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remember. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it Secretary Connally ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remember. 

Mr. Weitz. John Ehrlichman ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't know, but I do remember him making that 
statement. There was an imparting of that information. 



7769 

Mr. Weitz. Wasn't that in relation to what the administration's 
posture would be, vis-a-vis AMPI, over the next 2 years? 

Mr, Campbell. I don't know why it Avas. It Avas just imparting in- 
formation. 

Mr. Weitz. Had he ever talked about it with you ? 

Mr. Campbell. I was aware this was being discussed because As- 
sistant Secretary Dick Lyng, under whose jurisdiction this operates, 
mentioned it and 

Mr. Weffz. Were you aware of an investigation being planned or 
that had begun — an antitrust investigation of the co-op ? 

Mr, Campbell. Oh, there were complaints from the local people that 
they were being harassed and adversely affected by AMPI in the 
Southwest area. I was not personally involved and complaints did 
not come to me, but they were to Assistant Secretary Dick Lyng. 
You see, that was his area of administration and I was aware of that 
through him. I don't recall them coming to me personally, although 
they could have. 

Mr. Weitz. Did the President announce the decision or indicate 
his position? 

Mr. Campbell. No ; as I recall at the meeting we just all agreed this 
Avas what Ave should do and after the meeting broke up it Avas incum- 
bent up on us in Agriculture to go back and institute it. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, Avould that include the President ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes; I don't remember a dissent in the room as to 
the consensus AA'hich aa'c finally arriA^ed at. 

Mr. Weitz. And the President was included in that consensus? 

Mr, Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he, in fact, announce or state what he thought the 
consensus Avas ? 

Mr. Campbell. I can't remember hoAv it Avent; I just remember that 
this Avas Avhat everybody concluded and this is Avhat the decision Avas. 
I can't remember any direct order being given. No, I can't remember 
that. 

Mr. Weitz. And your understanding at the end of the meeting 
Avas that the President had agreed to have a price-support increase? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. To 85 percent ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. By the way, was it in terms of percentages — of 85, 80, 
90 percent ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir ; 85 or 90, and we did not Avant to go to 90 
percent because of the impact on the Treasury and also the danger 
of further increasing surpluses. 

Mr. Weitz. If Ed Jones Avanted 90 percent, why did you think 85 
percent would do ? 

Mr. Ca^^ipbell. Well, Ave didn't Avant 85. We thought 75 percent 
Avould do 

Mr. Weitz. No — politically Avould do. I knoAv you thought eco- 
nomically 75 Avould do, but why did you go to 85 ? 

Mr. Campbell. I thought 90 percent Avould stimulate overproduc- 
tion. The Avorst thing that could happen to the dairymen was to get 
into a surplus position, as they had previously which, by the re-cords, 
indicates it takes 4 or 5 years to get out of. They are then harmed in 



7770 

the price of their product and the support level. And my feeling was 
for the dairymen and I did not want overproduction. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, when you say it was then incimibent upon USDA 
people at the end of the meeting to implement the decision, exactly 
what was decided about getting out the decision ? Was there any dis- 
cussion of who would draft it or who would review it or what the 
process would be ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, it was just for us to go back to the Department 
and put it in the proper channels to do it. We have the personnel over 
there who regularly attend to this type of thing. 

Mr. Weitz. Who would that be ? 

Mr. Campbell. Whoever does that in the Commodity Credit Cor- 
poration — ASCS — ^that area of the Department. I don't know specif- 
ically who would have done it. 

^Mr. Weitz. That would have been under ]\Ir. Frick's jurisdiction? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. sir, that is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. And under him was Sidney Cohen for one ? 

Mr. Campbell. The dairy division is under him. I don't know who 
actually does it. 

Mr. Weitz. But they would have been the ones to have been in- 
volved ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any reference at the close of the meeting about 
Charles Colson ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall. There could have been, but I don't 
recall. 

Mr. Weitz. How about contacting the dairy people ? 

Mr. Campbell. I requested the privilege of making a telephone call, 
because I said I want to try to get these boys off of our back and get 
them to leave us alone. And I requested the privilege personally of 
making a call to Harold Nelson to ask him "Now, will you get off 
our backs and leave us alone ?" I didn't tell him we were going to raise 
the price, if we do consider the price, and I don't recall telling him, and 
I do not think I did tell him that 

Mr. Weitz. Wait, I don't understand; in other words, you had just 
arrived at a consensus that increases to 85 percent would be granted in 
the hopes that that would prevent any further increase ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. And that was decided, and it was decided USDA would 
work that up in the normal processes in ASCS and get it out. Now, 
what was the purpose of your call again ? 

Mr. Campbell. To ask him to leave us alone and quit pressuring us 
for all of these things because it was to the harm of the dairymen, that 
was my judgment. Of course, he was on the other side of the fence. I 
said, "Now, please leave us alone. If we do decide to go, will you leave 
us alone ? Will you stop all of this pressure ?" 

Mr. Weitz. Was the announcement contingent upon his agreeing? 

Mr. Campbell. No, it was not ; no. I just wanted the privilege of 
trying to stop him and trying to use my influence to stop him. No, it 
was not contingent in any respect. Tlie decision had already been 
made. Wliat I wanted to do was to stop this because I thought it was 
harmful to the dairymen. 

Mr. Weitz. Wiy didn't you wait until the decision was announced 
to do this ? "^ « 



7771 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I just wanted to get hold of him and pressure 
him as much as I could to get him to stop this type of thing, this 
pressure on us to do what I thought was harmful to the dairymen. 

Mr. Weitz. No one asked or no one raised the possibility of your 
doing this before you requested it ? 

]Mr. Campbell. jSTo, sir. I personally requested that privilege to be 
able to call liim to try to get them off of our backs and also to stop 
them from doing things that I thought were harmful to the dairymen. 

Ml-. Weitz. That is to seek an increase ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Anything else ? 

Mv. Campbell. No, that was primarily it. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there anything else? You say primarily. 

Mr. Campbell. Because I agreed w^ith trying to slow down the im- 
ports, which I have already testified to, because the imports were sub- 
stantially subsidized by the European governments, and our dairy 
farmers have a hard time competing. They can't compete with sub- 
sidized imports on a grand scale. But I was thinking primarily of 
"Leave us alone on this price situation," because it was harmful to the 
dairymen. 

Mv. Weitz. You say primarily, but was there anything else you 
thought was harmful to dairy farmers or to dairy farmers' interests ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, at that time, that is all I had in mind. 

INIr. Weitz. And before you volunteered or after you volunteered or 
requested the permission to call Nelson, did anyone raise the possi- 
bility or discuss how or whether the dairy people would be contacted 
prior to the announcement of the decision ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall that specifically. It seems to me that 
tliat probably was, but I just don't recall it specifically. 

Mr. Saxders. I am sorry. Could you restate that question or else 
have her read it back ? 

Mr. Weitz. Let me restate the question. You said that you requested 
permission to contact Nelson to give him the message or ask him the 
question you stated. 

Mr. Campbell. I Avasn't going to give him the message because I 
did not tell him we were going to raise the price. 

Mr. Weitz. But ask him the question ? 

Mr. Campbell. In other words : "If we do raise the price, if we do 
change our minds, and if we do raise the price, would you and the 
dairymen stop pressing for this type of thing because in my opinion 
you are hurting the dairymen." 

Mr. Weitz. OK. Now, at the meeting, either before or after you 
asked that permission, my question was : Did anyone discuss whether 
or how the dairy people would be contacted before the announcement 
was publicly announced ? That was my question. 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, it seems to me vaguely as though somebody 
said : "Well, they ought to be alerted" or something. I can't remember 
specifically. It just seems to me though, vaguely, that was discussed, 
and it was at that time that I asked permission to do what I wanted to 
do, which I thought was good for the dairymen. 

Mr. Weitz. So that did precede your request? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't know. 

Mr. Weitz. I thought you just said it was at that time. 



7772 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, I think that is what happened. I am just a lit- 
tle bit vague. But I do think that is Avhat happened. I don't recall spe- 
cifically how it went, thouo;h. 

Mr. Weitz. Did either the President or Ehrlichman refer to Charles 
Colson ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I don't remember Ehrlichman being there, as 
I said. And you know I told you who I did remember being there, and 
I don't know Avho made that or I don't know how the conversation 
went. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall anyone at the meeting referring to Colson 
though ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't specifically remember. No, I don't. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you remember anyone referring to Chotiner? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't remember that. 

Mr. Weitz. Did Connally make any reference to getting in touch 
with the dairymen ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remember he did, no. I don't remember. 

Mr. Weitz. So you don't know who did, in other words? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't. Somebody did say they ought to be 
alerted but I don't remember. 

Mr. Weitz. Did the President say it ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't think so. I don't remember. I said I just don't 
remember really. 

Mr. Weitz. Now was the suggestion that the dairy people — or the 
comment rather — that the dairy people be alerted, was that intended to 
be the same thing as your contact with them or was that something 
different? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't know. I think— I just have no idea. I think 
they were just going to, as I remember it, and as I said — and this is 
very vague to me, but it seems as though somebody said, "Well, we 
need to tell the dairymen we ai-e going to raise the support." I_ mean 
somebody had to let them know. 

Mr. Weitz. Before the public announcement? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I don't know when. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, after the public announcement they would ob- 
viously know. 

Mr. Campbell. That is correct, so I would assume it would have been 
before. 

Mr. Weitz. Is there anything else that you can recall about that 
afternoon meeting? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't recall anything else. As I said, as I re- 
member it, it was relatively brief. Maybe 20 minutes. I am not sure how 
long. We weren't there too long though. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any miderstanding when the decision would 
be announced ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, they left it up to us, as I remember, to go on back 
and implement it. 

Mr. Weitz. How long did you think it would take? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, I didn't even think. I mean we turned this over 
to the people and they handled it. It is just put into the machinery 
and it is handled in that manner. I didn't make any detemiinations, 
that I can recall, as to how long it would take. I didn't even think in 
those terms. 



7773 

Mr. Weitz. On the way back to your office did you discuss either 
the meeting or the implementation with Secretary Hardin? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remember discussmg it, but I think that he 
was to be at Camp David and he left it in my hands to go ahead and 
put the machinery in gear to implement the decision. 

Mr. Weitz. Secretary Hardin Avas to be at Camp David ? 

Mr. Campbell. I think that is right. He left town I know. 

Mr. Weitz. With the President ? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh no, no. Well, I don't know who was at Camp 
David. I think he was up there by himself. I am not sure though but 
Avith his family, taking a rest. I have no idea w^ho was there. 

Mr. Weitz. Ho left right after the meeting or shortly after the meet- 



ing 



Mr. Campbell. Yes. I didn't see him again, as I remember. After 
we got back to the building, as I recall it and I got with Assistant 
Secretary Lyng and we weiit ahead and went through the procedures 
and got the press release out. 

Mr. Weitz. "When did you call up Nelson ? 

Mr. Campbell. I called him as soon as I got back to the office that 
day. 

Mr. Weitz. And did you reach him directly ? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Weitz, Directly ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Where was he ? 

Mr. Campbell. He was in San Antonio. I called him long distance. 

Mr. Weitz. He had met with the President that morning, there- 
fore, he had flown back to San Antonio? 

Mr. Campbell. I assume that is right, yes. I put in a call and got 
him and I assume he was in San Antonio. I don't know where he was. 
I would think he was there. It is my opinion. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, what we have as Nelson exhibit No. 6* is a 
record of phone records, messages for INIr. Nelson in the home office in 
San Antonio. And at 4 :50 central standard time which would be 5 :50 
eastern standard time which would be the time in Washington on 
March 23, 1971, there is a record of a phone call from Mr. Phil Camp- 
bell to Mr. Nelson with the message to return the call to your home. 
Is your number area code 703-360-5789 ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. That would indicate then, that at 5:30 in the after- 
noon, which would have been shortly after the 4:45 meeting, you 
placed a call that did not reach IVIr. Nelson. 

Mr. Campbell. Maybe I didn't. All I know is I placed the call and 
talked to him. I can't give you the details. I mean you have the rec- 
ords and I will have to accept when it was on there. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall him returning the call at your home that 
evening ? 

Mr. Campbell. I recall I talked to him. I don't recall under what 
circumstances. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you talk to him after dinner? 

Mr. Campbell. I thought I talked to him at the office. My memory 
may be wrong on that. 

•See Be -k 15, p. 6710. 



7774 

Mr. Weitz, You see the records show he was still in Washington 
that day. 

Mr. Campbell. I see. I don't know where I talked to him but I 
placed the call and talked to him but I can't tell you exactly when. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you have your secretary place the call? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remember how it was done. 

Mr. Weitz. But it is likely that the only number you would have had 
in your records would have been his office in San Antonio ? 

Mr. Campbell. That is correct. Yes. Possibly his home. I don't know. 

Mr. Weitz. But not his hotel room in Washington? 

Mr. Campbell. No. I recall I had the call placed, I did talk to him, 
but I don't know how or when the call was completed. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you tell us what you told him on the telephone ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. I asked him to — well I said, "Now Harold, if 
we do change our mind and do raise the price, will you and the other 
dairymen stop asking us for price increases"— well, not price increases 
but price-support increases — "because I don't think it is good for the 
dairymen. Will you get off our backs?" And he agreed and said he 
would. 

Mr. Weitz. You recall using that language, "Get off our backs?" 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, I asked him to get off our backs and he agreed 
that if we did raise the price support that he would. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you indicate that you had met with the President? 

Mr. Campbell. No. 

Mr. Weitz. The "we" was just a collective we referring to the ad- 
ministration ? 

Mr. Campbell. That is correct. To the Department. To the Secre- 
tary. The Secretary makes the decision. We don't. 

Mr. Weitz. But the President made this decision ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, we made it collectively in his office. We agreed 
to the position we were in politically up on the Hill, because of — you 
used the term "politics" and I guess that is a bad term. I look upon 
Congress as the highest policy setter we have and they were setting 
their policy — setting different from ours — if that is politics, yes, 
that is it. 

Mr. Weitz. When you said, "Get off our backs," were you referring 
to 1971 or for future years? 

Mr. Campbell. I was referring to then and anytime in the future. 
Short term future. I couldn't say what period of time, you know. T just 
said I wanted them to quit pressing when the market price was rising 
and taking care of the dairymen, I couldn't say any specific time 
limit. I just wanted them to leave us alone. And the dairymen were 
doing real well in the market with the price having escalated. I didn't 
have in mind 1972 if that is what you are referring to. 

Mr. Weitz. And what was his response? 

Mr. Campbell. He said that — Avell, he agreed and said: "We will 
leave you alone." 

Mr. Weitz. If it is increased ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. To what level ? Did you discuss a level ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remmeber whether I did or not frankly. I 
don't remember what — I probably said: "If we increase it to 85." 
That is probabl}^ what I said, I don't remember but I would assume 



7775 

that is what I said. That would have been the natural thing for me 
to have said but I don't recall specifically. 

The main thing I remember is asking him, "Will you get off our 
backs if we do make an increase in the support level?'' 

Mr. Weitz. Kow, as of that morning there had been no indication, 
at least that you were aware of, that there was going to be a recon- 
sideration at least, by the administration, for an increase and actually 
granting it ? 

Mr. Campbell. ^NTo; but I was aware of the pressure from the Hill 
and I did Avonder whether or not we were going to be able to hold out. 
That was the question in my mind as to whether we would be able to. 

Mr. Weitz. The natural understanding of your conversation with 
Nelson would have been that at least an active reconsideration of the 
problem was underway 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz [continuing]. If not a decision to actually increase 
having been made ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I didn't imply that. I did not tell him that it 
had been made. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you discuss anything else in the conversation ? 

Mr. Campbell. Xo; that was a very short conversation. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you ask him not to boycott the Republican fund- 
raising dinner the next night ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir, I don't recall even talking to him about that. 
I don't recall any conversations Avith him in regard to that f undraising. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you attend that dinner ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware on the 23d the dinnei' was going to be 
held the next evening ? 

Mr. Campbell. I was aware because I got a letter soliciting me to 
buy a $1,000 ticket, which I was not financially able to do. I get these 
letters each year and I have never bought a ticket because I am not 
financially able to. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aAvare that the dairy co-ops were planning to 
attend the dinner — representatives of the co-op were planning to attend 
the dinner? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't know when I knew. I heard afterwards that 
they were there and I don't know how many tickets they bought or 
anything about it, but I had nothing to do with them purchasing the 
tickets. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware that after the March 12 decision they 
had started to change their minds about attending the dinner and in 
fact some of them wanted to boycott the dinner? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall that ; no. I do not recall that because 
I was not involved in initiating or instigating the purchase of any 
tickets to that dinner. 

Mr. Weitz. Well, whether or not you Avere involved in initiating or 
instigating the purchase of the tickets, Avere you aAvare or Avere there 
people telling you or inferring the fact that there Avas a change of 
sentiment on the part of the daii-y people ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall it. I don't recall when I kneAv they 
were even thinking of buying tickets. I do remember hearing, as I 
remember, that they had tAvo or three tables. I don't knoAV how many 



7776 

people that would be but I assume that is 10 people to a table. I don't 
recall the time sequence of when I heard this because, frankly, I was 
not involved in the dinner, I was not involved in trying to sell 
tickets and did not attend the dinner and as a result it wasn't of 
prime importance to me in my mind and I don't remember when I 
heard anything of that type but I do remember hearing afterward 
that they did have tAvo or three tables. 

Mr. Weitz. Before the dinner you didn't discuss with any one the 
likelihood of the dairy people either attending or not attending the 
dinner ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remember any such discussions, although 
I may have heard that just like I heard this other thing of donating 
$2 million to the President's campaign. I could have heard that but 
I don't recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you know of any plans by the dairy people to 
contribute as much as $60,000, $80,000, or $100,000 to the dinner or 
to the dinner committees ? 

Mr. Campbell. I had no personal knowledge of this. I don't recall 
anyone telling me and saying, "We are going to do these things," 
although I did hear afterward that they had. I could have very 
easily been told by somebody, "Well, they are going to buy tickets 
to the dinner," but that wasn't important to me. I wasn't involved. 
And I don't recall it. It could have been told to me but I just don't 
recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. Is there any way that you can pinpoint the time when 
you talked to Nelson on the 23d other than the fact it apparently 
was after 5 :50 p.m. ? 

Mr. Campbell. No; there is not. I remember placing the call and 
then, until you corrected me, I thought I got the call through but I 
evidently did not and I just don't know when I talked to him but I 
thought it was that same day. It might not have been, it could have 
been the next day but I did talk to him. And I thought it was the 
same day but it may not have been. 

Mr. Weitz. Assuming it was the same day though, you don't recall 
talking to him at home versus at your office ? 

Mr. Campbell. No. 

Mr. Weitz. When you talked to Nelson, did you get the impression 
from anything he said or from his reaction, that he had talked to 
anyone who had given him some type of similar message from the 
administration or who had discussed the price-support matter with 
him? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall him mentioning that, no. No, I do not. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you report the outcome of the conversation to 
anyone ? 

Mr. Campbell. I am sure that I probably told Secretary Hardin, 
the first chance I got, that I did call Harold Nelson and he did promise 
to get off our backs. I would think I told Secretary Hardin that be- 
cause I try to keep him completely inform^ed of every'thing that I did 
and I would assume that I told him this. I don't remember sj^ecifically 
doing it but I would think that I did because that is the way I operate. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you tell Assistant Secretary Lyng? 

Mr. Campbell. I probably did, but I don't recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. Anyone else that you can recall ? 



7777 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't know that I did tell Assistant Secretary 
Lyng very frankly. I don't know that I would have any particular 
compulsion to but he and I were very close and I probably did tell 
him but I don't remember. 

Mr. Weitz. Did anyone discuss with you in March of 1971, the fact 
that the dairy co-ops hadn't given to the Republican Party or the 
Presidential campaign ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall any such conversations. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall any conversations that referred to the 
fact that these particular dairy co-ops were the most politically ag- 
gressive organizations in agriculture ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I think I could have said that because at that 
time they were politically aggressive. I didn't say they were politically 
successful but they were politically aggressive. I mean, that was my 
general opinion. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you tell that to Nelson ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't know whether I did or not. 

Mr. Weitz. There probably would have been no need because he, 
himself, was aware of it ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall. That was just general talk in the 
Department you know. It was evident by all of the activity — the 
contributing to both parties on the Hill and everyone else. 

Mr. Weitz. Were either of those two phrases, "politically aggres- 
sive organization" or "didn't give," were either of those or the sub- 
stance of those discussed at the afternoon meeting with the President ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall it being discussed. 

Mr. Weitz. What about after or before the meeting? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I am sure we probably imparted information 
that these boys were very politically active, that they were up on 
the Hill working, and all. I am sure we discussed that with OIVIB in 
trying to analyze our position and deciding what to do. I can't remem- 
ber specifically talking about it, but I am sure it would have been 
natural for me to do so. But I still thought they were harming the 
dairymen. 

My position was still that we shouldn't raise the price support. 

Mr. Weitz. What action did you take to have the decision announced, 
the price-support increase announced? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't remember who I contacted when I got back 
to the Department, to put it in gear, but then we did have to have a 
draft of a press release and I think that I either participated or helped 
draft the press release but I don't remember who handled the mech- 
anism to put it into gear. 

Mr. Weitz. Was there any instructions that you were aware of to 
keep the press release and the subsequent docket as short as possible 
or as brief as possible ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall that. It could have occurred but I just 
don't recall it. 

Mr. Weitz. Was the docket prepared and did the CCC review the 
docket before the announcement ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall that. That can be ascertained from the 
records though. 

Mr. Weitz. Is that the noi-mal procedure? 



7778 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, we do do that at times when we don't have time 
for the CCC meeting. This isn't the first or only time. If we did make 
the announcement before the CCC meeting, and I don't know whether 
we did or not, I would assume we made the announcement before we 
did have another meeting and then confirmed it with a CCC meeting 
but this does occur from time to time with different items before the 
Commodity Credit Corporation and decisions are made and then they 
are coAfirmed by docket with the Commodity Credit Corporation 
because the Secretary has the authority to do this. 

Mr. Weitz. If we could try to follow the process until the decision 
was announced, the record shows it was announced on the 25th and 
the meeting ended late on the afternoon of the 23d. Could you tell us, 
to the best of your recollection, exactly what steps you took when the 
press releases were drafted ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall any of the steps except being involved 
in the drafting of the press release. 

Mr, Weitz. Wliy wasn't the press release the next day? 

Mr. Campbell. I can't tell you that. It isn't always done that way. 
In fact when the machinery goes in gear with Commodity Credit, after 
we have had a meeting there, they have to go back down and get all 
of the dockets in order and prepare the press releases and sometimes 
have them prepared ahead of time and sometimes they don't. And you 
have these timelags. I don't remember any specific reason for it not 
being released the next day. 

Mr. Weitz. There was no discussion that you were aware of, of a 
certain day or timing for the release of the announcement ? 

jVIr. Campbell. I don't recall that but there could have been. I just 
don't recall it though. 

Mr. Weitz. 'V^Hio would have been involved in that if you weren't? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, the Secretary. 

Mr. Weitz. He was in Camp David ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, but we were in contact with him by telephone. 
Assistant Secretary Lyng or I or people in the Department, but I 
don't recall any discussions as to how they went or to the fact that there 
was any reason to make it the next day or the following day. 

Mr. Weitz. You are certain you talked to Lyng about this shortly 
after the meeting and well in advance of the announcement on the 
25th? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, I would assume that I did. Yes. he and I talked 
and I know that I did because, very frankly, we decided because we 
didn't like the parity concept so well, that we would add 1 penny on 
the price above the 85 percent and make it $4.93 instead of $4.92. 

Mr. Weitz. Why not 1 penny less ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, we could have done that but there wasn't any 
reason one way or the other. It was just to put a pennv difference in. 

Mr. Weitz. Wasn't Assistant Secretary Palmby the one responsible 
for the commodity aspect of USDA ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, he is. 

Mr. Weitz. Why wasn't he consulted instead, or in addition to 
Lyng? 

Mr. Campbell. Consulted about what ? 

Mr. Weitz. With respect to issuing the press release. 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I don't know where Secretary Palmby was at 
that time. I don't know whether he was in town or out of town, but 



7779 

Secretary Lyng has responsibilities with the dairy industry also 
and 

Mr. Weitz. But not in the commodity area. 

Mr. Campbell. Not in the price support, but he has other responsi- 
bilities. And as I indicated, he was concerned about the treatment of 
some o:roups of dairymen in the southwestern pait over there but I 
don't think there was anything peculiar about Secretary Lyng being 
involved. He had gone to the meeting in Chicago when Secretary Har- 
din spoke. I don't think that was unusual I mean. I don't know where 
Secretary Palmby was. He could have been in town or he could have 
been out of town. 

Mr. Weitz. When did 0MB sign off on the press release ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't Imow, probably just before it was issued. 

Mr. Weitz. On the 25th ? 

Mr. Campbell. Probably but I don't know really. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you involved in meeting with them or having 
them sign off ? 

Mr. Campbell. Probably by telephone. I am just guessing now. I 
don't really recall. It would have had to be by telephone. I do not think 
I had a meeting with them. 

Mr. Weitz. Did anyone at the "^Vhite House sign off on the press 
release ? 

Mr. Campbell. Not that I know of. They could have but I certainly 
don't think they did. And I don't know positively whether 0MB did, 
but I assume they did. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know of any contacts either between yourself 
or Secretary Hardin after the afternoon meeting and the press release ? 

Mr. Campbell. I tliink we cleared the press release by telephone 
with him. 

Mr. Weitz. With Hardin ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. But my question, did either you or Hardin have any con- 
tact during that period with anyone in the White House? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall one but I could have talked about the 
press I'elease with someone. I don't know whether he did or not. 

Mr. Weitz. Who might you have ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't know. I would assume John Whitaker, be- 
cause he was our contact man, but I do not say I did, but I would as- 
sume it would have been, if I did, with John Whitaker or Don Rice, 
because they are the ones that normally would have handled it. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you ever talk about dairy contributions with John 
Whitaker? 

Mr. Caimpbell. I could have but I don't remember. I could have told 
him that these boys are tlirowing money all over the place. It would 
have been a casual conversation. I wouldn't have made a point of it 
because that was totally irrelevant to me as to the things I was hearing 
because I was not involved directly or indirectly in these and 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know Pat Hillings ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall him. 

Mr. Weitz. So you wouldn't have been 

Mr. Campbell. Who is he ? 

Mr. Weitz. Patrick J. Hillings. He is a lawyer for the dairy people 
and also a former Conorressman. 



7780 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't recall him. I don't recall knowing him 
at any time. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you recall his attending the morning meeting on the 
23d with the President? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't remember that. 

Mr. Weitz. You don't recall the President referring to Hillings' 
propensity not to drink milk ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't remember that. 

Mr. Weitz. Therefore, you would not have been the source for any 
knowledge on the part of John Whitaker that Hillings and Chotiner 
were involved in the dairy people's contribution activity ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't recall anything of that nature. 

Mr. Weitz. Do you know what source Wliitaker had for that in- 
formation ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, based on your involvement in the deliberations 
during March in the first and second decisions, was it your under- 
standing that the second decision announced on March 25 was based 
solely on the statutory criteria ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, the statutory criteria gave us the authority but 
it was based also on what the Congress might do. 

Mr. Weitz. Was it based on the political considerations that were 
discussed at the meeting with the President on the afternoon of the 
23d? 

]\Ir. Campbell. In my mind it was based on the fact that Congress 
might substitute their policy judgment for ours and that to me was 
the basis of the change in the decision. 

Mr. Weitz. Would that also include possible impact on the Presi- 
dent's reelection campaign ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, it could have, but I am just giving you what 
was in my mind. 

Mr. Weitz. I am asking you what was discussed at the meeting 
though. 

Mr. Campbell. Well I already answered that, I think, previously. 
You have asked me that previously, and I do not recall that being spe- 
cifically, but it would have been natural for it to have been discussed, 
but I don't recall the exact statements. 

Mr. Weitz. Now we referred previously to your affidavit in the 
Nader v. Butz litigation, a copy of which has been entered as exhibit 
1. Secretary Hardin also executed an affidavit at about the same time 
in March 1972 in connection with that same case. Could you tell us 
how your affidavit, and if you know. Secretary Hardin's affidavit, was 
prepared ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well my affidavit was prepared by the lawyers in 
the Department of Agriculture, the general Counsel's office. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you consult with them ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Weitz. And do you know Avhether Secretary Hardin consulted 
with them in regard to his affidavit ? 

Mr. Campbell. I do not know. 

Mr. Weitz. Did he discuss his affidavit with you ? 

Mr. Campbell. I do not recall him specifically discussing his 
affidavit. T do not remember. 



7781 

Mr. Weitz. Did you discuss your affidavit with him ? 

Mr, Campbell. Oh, I don't recall it but I am sure that I was aware 
that he was going- to have one prepared and also he was aware that 
I was having to have one prepared. I am sure because we were very 
close. And I just don't recall any discussion about it but I am posi- 
tive he knew it and I know that I knew he was having one prepared. 
But the lawyers prepared mine and I assume the lawyers also in the 
Department prepared his. 

Mr. Weitz. Aside from the particular affidavit in the Nader v. Butz 
case that was filed which the record indicates was in January 1972, did 
you have occasion to discuss the price-support increase with either 
Secretary Hardin or anyone else at Agriculture ? 

Mr. Campbell. Would you repeat that ? I am trying to get your time 
sequence. 

Mr. Weitz. After the suit was filed in January 1972, did you have 
occasion to discuss the litigation and the underlying matter, the price- 
support increase in 1971, with Secretary Hardin or anyone else at the 
Department ? 

Mr. Campbell, Well, I am sure we discussed it, but the decision Kad 
already been made and it was already set. 

Mr. Weitz. Yes, but the suit challenged the legality of the increase. 
What I am asking you in that connection, did you discuss the delibera- 
tions and the March 25 decision after the suit was filed? 

jNIr. Campbell. You mean discuss the deliberations that we had 
previously ? 

Mr. Weitz. That is right, the reasons for it, the legality of it, and 
so forth ? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, I can't remember. I don't remember doing it. I 
could have, but I don't remember. 

Mr. Weitz. I would ask the same question with regard to anyone in 
the White House. Did you discuss the past year's deliberations, the 
reasons for the price-support increase, with anyone in the White 
House? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I can't remember doing so, but it is certainly 
possible that I did. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you discuss it with David Wilson ? 

Mr. Campbell, Who is David Wilson ? 

Mr, Weitz. Do you know David Wilson ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall him. 

]Mr. AVeitz. Did you discuss it with anyone on John Dean's staff? 

Mr. Campbell. Not to my knowledge because I don't know John 
Dean, either. No, I haven't discussed anything with anybody over there 
that I can recollect and I do not know these gentlemen. May I make 
one additional point for the record ? 

Mr. Weitz. Certainly. 

Mr. Campbell. You talk to people by telephone, you know. You 
get a call and you don't know who the fellow is. He identifies himself. 
And I don't recall having any conversations, but that isn't to say I 
didn't have, but I can't recall them. 

]Mr. Weitz. I understand. Now paragraph 11, which is the next to 
last paragraph in Hardin's affidavit, reads as follows : 

Neither the decision to reevaluate the $4.66 per hundredweight support-price 
level nor the ultimate decision to establish the price-support level at $4.93 per 
hundredweight was based on any consideration other than those outlined in 



7782 

this affidavit. Specifically at no time did any person or organization promise or 
lead me to believe that funds of any kind or anything of value would be paid 
to me or any other person, or organization in return for a reevaluation of or 
increase in the price support level. 

Now I would like you to look at the paragraph because I know it is 
sometimes difficult to take it all in. 

Mr. Campbell. No, I heard every word you said. 

Mr. Weitz. My question is this. In your affidavit, there is no dis- 
claimer or nothing that approaches that particular paragraph. There 
is no reference, in fact, to contributions either by w^ay of disclaimer or 
otherwise. My question is this : Do you have any knowledge that would 
either contravene that paragraph or any other knowledge that bears 
on the relationship between contributions and the price-support 
increase in March 19T1? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir, I do not have. I could say that I insisted to 
the lawyers that they put in my affidavit the activities on the Hill 
because they were compelling and you have noticed in my affidavit 
that these are alluded to. 

Mr. Weitz. Oh, yes, there are other matters but no reference to 
contributions. That is Avhy I wanted to ask you about it. That is all. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Sanders. I would like to have a break before I proceed. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. Sanders. Mr. Campbell, there are allegations being made, al- 
legations have been made of a very serious nature, that the decision 
by the Nixon administration, in fact by the President to increase the 
price support for milk on March 25, 1971, over and above what had 
been decided on March 12 was influenced by or based on contributions 
which had been made to his reelection or commitments which were 
being made for contributions to his reelection. 

Now, it appears from the Wliite House white paper and from your 
testimony today, that w^hatever decision was reached by the adminis- 
tration on March 23 was arrived at in a meeting that afternoon, in a 
meeting Avitli the President, at which you were in attendance. So what 
happened during that period of time, I think, would be very, very 
important to the allegations which are being made. You have told us 
that you are not aware of any direction by the President to Secretary 
Hardin or to you to order a.i increase in the price level but rather 
that some consensus was reached by those who were in attendance. 

The white paper does say on page 6 at the top : "After the Presi- 
dent announced his decision, there was discussion of the great power 
of the House Democratic leadership." This is in the context of what 
occurred at the March 28 afternoon meeting. And you have been asked 
here today whether you have any recollection of the President actually 
stating at the meeting, in your presence, a decision by him that the 
price support should be increased. 

Mr. Campbell. Well, I guess in my testimony I would have to say 
that we didn't walk in the room and receive an order to increase the 
support level and then walk out of the room. 

When I say there was a consensus we went in and analyzed the situ- 
ation in Congress and made a judgment collectively and all seemed 
to agre^ in the room. I do not remember any dissent. And the President 
could have easily said, "Well, that is what we will do, let's do it." Of 



7783 

course he is the final authority. But what I was trying to relay was, 
that we didn't walk in and sit clown and then have him give us an order 
to do it. We discussed it and then when it came that evei-ybody was in 
general agreement that this was our position, well, then, the President 
probably said, "Well, let's do it." I don't remember what he said. But 
what I am trying to say is we just didn't go down and get an order 
and then leave the meeting. We made an analysis of the situation in 
Congress and got, to me, what was a consensus. I can't remember 
the convei'sation. I can't remember what the President specifically 
said. 

Mr. Sanders. Well it appeared to you that at the beginning of the 
meeting there was not yet any decision on the part of the Department 
of Agriculture or on the parit of the President that the price support 
would be increased ? 

Mr. Campbell. That certainly was the case with Secretary Hardin 
and me. So far as I know, I mean, that was Secretary Hardin's posi- 
tion and what the position of the other people in the room was before 
we got there, I don't know, because I had no conversations with them. 

Mr. Sanders. From the tenor of the President's remarks as the 
meeting progressed, did it appear to you that he decided what he 
would do before the meeting with you ? 

Mr. Campbell. I could not make that analysis or judgment. I just 
couldn't. That thought never struck me and I didn't ever analyze it. 
I didn't get any such impression. 

Mr. Sanders. Now if the President's decision evolved from the dis- 
cussion w^hich occurred at that meeting and if there was no mention 
during the meeting of contributions which had been made or commit- 
ments which had been made to his reelection, then the allegations that 
he based his decision on such contributions and commitments would 
have to fail. And what I would like you to tell us now is your best 
recollection of what was said at the meeting, if anything, concerning 
contributions or commitments. 

Mr. Campbell. I do not recall any discussion of that type of specific 
contributions to anyone. 

Mr. Sanders. Furthermore at the close of the meeting it was incum- 
bent upon you and Secretary Hardin to return to the Department of 
Agriculture and to implement the decision. 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. And you did so ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. Did anyone at the meeting or after the meeting, before 
you returned to the Department, tell you that the decision had been 
based on any commitments or contributions to the President's re- 
election ? 

Mr. Campbell. No sir. 

Mr. Sanders. Were you told to have any discussion with any of- 
ficials of AMPI or any other co-ops concerning contributions or com- 
mitments to the reelection ? 

Mr. Campbell. No sir. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have any knowledge that any Wliite House 
officials were to have any discussion with AMPI or other dairy co-ops 
concerning contributions or commitments ? 

Mr. Campbell. No sir. 



7784 

Mr. Sanders. During your conversation with Harold Nelson, soon 
after the meeting, did he mention contributions or commitments to 
you? 

Mr. Campbell. I do not recall Harold Nelson making any such 
statement, sir. If he did they were not important to me and I do not 
recall him making any such statement. 

Mr. Sanders. In any event the final decision which was rendered by 
the Department of Agriculture to increase the price support to $4.93 
cents, which was given final approval by you and Secretary Hardin, 
had no basis whatever in any contributions already made by the dairy 
producers or contributions to be made by the dairy producers. 

Mr. Campbell. No. 

Mr. Sanders. The white paper mentions a discussion in the meeting 
of the great power of the House Democratic leadership. Do you have 
any present recollection of what was said in that regard? 

Mr. Campbell. No; I don't have any recollection, but this was the 
topic of discussion, that Congress was responding to the efforts of the 
dairymen in their contact with the individual members on the Hill. 
And I do not remember specific names being brought out, but, of 
course, some of the most powerful Members of Congress on the Hill 
were supporting the dairymen's position. 

Mr. Sanders. The white paper adds to that : 

The discussion included an appraisal of the support which the legislation had 
on Capitol Hill and the fact that the legislation had the support of two of the 
most powerful legislators in the country, Speaker Albert and Chairman Mills. 

Do you recall any further details in that connection ? 
Mr. Campbell. No ; I do not recall any details but I did personally 
know that the dairymen had the support of these two Members. 
Mr. Sanders. The white pa]3er continues by saying: 

The discussion covered how the power of the Democratic leadership might be 
enlisted in support of certain of the President's key domestic legislation if the 
administration acknowledged the key role these leaders played in securing a 
reversal of the March 12 decision. 

Do you have any present recollection of anv details in connection 
Aviththat? 

Mr. Campbell. No; I do not remember that. I do not remember 
that discussion. 

Mr. Sanders. And finally the white paper says that : "The meeting 
concluded with a discussion of the manner in which the decision would 
be announced and implemented." Can you elaborate on that? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, that area is a little vague. And I cannot remem- 
ber it specifically. But as I have already testified, it seems as though 
someone said they had to alert the dairymen and at that time I asked 
as we were breaking up, or sometime, maybe not at the specific 
time, I asked permission to call the dairymen in order to request that 
they stop the pressure for price-support increases. 

Mr. Sanders. You have told us that the decision which was rendered 
on March 12 was a close call. I don't recall whether those were the 
exact words but that was the import ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes; that is the meaning of what I said. 

Mr. Sanders. Would it be fair to say that it is one on which reason- 
able men could differ ? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, yes. 



7785 

Mr. Sanders. Would you explain — well, let me back up just a mo- 
ment. 

In March 1971, I can't pinpoint the time more precisely than that, 
but market price for fluid milk, I believe, was $5.05 sometime in that 
period. At any rate it was up around $5. If, on March 12, the support 
price had then been fixed at $4.93, would this have affected the cost 
to the Government at that level ? 

Mr. Campbell. To the best of my recollection, at the time, the price 
Avas approximately $4.90 rather than $5.05, but this w^ould be subject 
to check on the records. The answer the question, as I believe it was, 
whether it would have an impact on the Treasury of costing the Fed- 
eral Government money ? 

Mr. Sanders. Yes. 

Mr. Campbell. Raising the price from $4.66 to $4.93 was a 27-cent 
per hundredweight increase and with the market price where it was 
in that same range, the impact on the Federal Government would be 
infinitesimal. And in the news media there had been statements all of 
the way from $300 million to $700 million worth of benefits to the dairy 
farmer. Mathematically there is no Avay, taking the $4.66 support level 
which was raised to $4.93, there is no way mathematically that this 
could have assisted the dairymen. By multiplying the production by 
this 27 percent increase 

Mr. Sanders. 27 percent increase ? 

Mr. Campbell [continuing]. 27-cent increase, by more than — 
slightly in excess of $300 million, if the 27-cent increase were all taken 
from tile Federal Treasury because there was a production level down 
of approximately 116 billion pounds of milk— if you multiply the 27 
cents by this figure you get slightly in excess of $300 million. However 
the market price was already in this range of $4.90 cents. So to assume 
any impact or drain from the Treasury from this action, would have to 
assume that the market price woidd drop below that figure during the 
marketing yeai-. And with the assumption that the price would drop 
during the spring flush, which is in April and May, or that the price 
would drop at seasonal times of lessening demand, such as in the sum- 
mer or at Christmas when schools are out, it is my opinion that there 
is no way, with this assumption, that the price would have dropped 
some, that there is no way that the impact on the Treasury would have 
been more than $50 million to $100 million. 

Mr. Sanders. Are you aware of whether any calculation has been 
made of the difference which would have resulted in the cost to the 
Federal Government between the support level, which was fixed on 
March 25, and the cost to the Government if the March 12 decision had 
been maintained for that marketing year? 

Mr. Campbell. If I understand the question, you are asking: Had 
we not raised the price? 

Mr. Sanders. No. I am asking if the hindsight there has been a 
calculation of the difference which would have resulted in the cost to 
the Government between the $4.66 and the $4.93 ? 

Mr. Campbell. Well, you have to assume to what level the market 
price would drop. If the market price had been at $4.66, it would have 
lieen $300 million, but the market price was. not at $4.66. It was at the 
$4.90 range. So that had the market price for the ensuing 12 months 
stayed at the $4.90 range the impact on the Federal Treasury would 



30-337 O - 74 -pt. 17 - 17 



7786 

have been practically zero. But you could assume though, that the price, 
had we not raised the support to $4.93, could have dropped during the 
spring flush. My estimation of the impact on the Treasury under that 
circumstance would be $50 million to $100 million. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have knowledge of whether the Department 
of Agriculture made an economic analysis of the difference in impact ? 

Mr. Campbell. I think that the economic research service perhaps 
has but I have not seen it in writing. I have not seen such a study but 
I think possibly a study was made. I am not sure. 

Mr. Sanders. Was there not also a concern that the legislative in- 
crease could have rippled to other commodities and caused an even 
greater drain on the Treasury in that manner ? In other words, if Con- 
gress saw fit to statutorily raise the support price for milk to such a 
very high level, that this attitude might have extended to some other 
commodities ? 

Mr. Campbell. I am not certain that would be true, no. I wouldn't 
personally have that particular feeling, because this effort was brought 
about as a result of the corn blight, which we had in the preceding year 
which had given us a short corn crop and the farm act is a 4-year act 
or a 5-year act and I am not certain that that was taken or that that 
came into consideration at all. I don't — it didn't come into my con- 
sideration. 

Mr. Sanders. No further questions. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Campbell, you were asked by Mr. Sanders with re- 
gard to your knowledge of any relationship between the price-support 
decision in March 1971 and the promise of, or the actual giving of, con- 
tributions to the President's reelection campaign. In that connection 
or in general wei'e you aware during March 1971, of any contacts be- 
tween people in the A^^iite House and the dairy industry aside from 
the meeting you attended on the morning of the 23d ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall any knowledge of any meetings. I did 
not attend any that I can remember and I don't recall hearing of any. 
I would have had to be told second or third hand. I don't recall any. 
That isn't to say it didn't occur but I don't recall any though. 

Mr. Weitz. Similarly, were you aware of any communications be- 
tween the President and any of his aides, other than the two meetings 
you attended on the 23d with regard to the price-support matter. 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't recall any. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware of any contacts between people in the 
White House and Republican fundraisers with regard to milk price 
supports ? 

Mr. Campbell. No. 

Mr. Weitz. Were you aware of any contacts between Eepublican 
fundraisers such as Mr. Kalmbach on the dairy price supports? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I am not familiar with Mr. Kalmbach and I am 
not aware of anything in that connection. 

Mr. Weitz. So whatever transpired, if anything transpired, between 
those indi\'iduals with regard to the price-support matter, you have no 
knowledge with regard to that ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir. 

Mr. Dorsen. I gather. Secretary Campbell, you have not heard the 
tape recording of the afternoon meeting? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I haven't heard it. 



7787 

Mr. DoRSEN. For that matter the morning meeting ? 

Mr. Campbell. No. 

Mr. DoRSEN. Did you play any role in the preparation of the white 
paper ? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, yes, I looked at the white paper. I didn't play a 
role in it. I looked at it for accuracy from my viewpoint of what I 
knew, yes. 

Mr, DoRSEX. Do you know who prepared the white paper? 

Mr. Campbell. I can't — I don't know who specifically did. There is 
somebody over there in the Executive Office Building and I don't know 
the fellow's name. I don't know who did it. I looked at it for accuracy 
from our viewpoint in the USDA. 

Mr. DoRSEN. And is it fair to say that the economic analysis that was 
contained in the white paper reflected your views ? 

Mr. Campbell. Economic analysis ? 

Mr. DoRSEN. Of the impact of the March 1971 price-support deci- 
sion, if that reflected your views ? 

Mr. Campbell. I don't recall what is in the white paper on that point. 
I would have to see what the figure is. This is speculation as to impact 
because nobody knows, but I have at times previously, used the figure 
of $100 million to $300 million, personally but it was just coming out 
of my head and I finally got a pencil and paper and personally made 
mathematical calculations and when I did — I have used what I said 
to you people here today — of $50 million to $100 million but that is 
only after I took the pencil and paper and did it. Now, I have used 
the personal figure before without doing any mathematical calcula- 
tions of $100 million to $300 million. I don't know what the figures 
are in the white paper. 

Mr. DoRSEN. So, I guess your position is, that based on varying types 
of analyses, different people could come to different conclusions as to 
the impact ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, because we don't know totally what would have 
happened in the marketplace with regard to the price of milk. 

Mr. DoRSEX. And I gather you know Dr. Don Paarlberg? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr, DoRSEX. And would he be qualified in addition to yourself ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, he would be qualified. He and I don't always 
agree and I don't always agree with my wife and my wife and I have 
differences but they are pleasant differences with my wife and pleasant 
with Dr. Paarlberg. But I do disagree sometimes with studies that 
come out of the Economic Research Service. 

Mr. DoRSEX. But he would be qualified ? 

Mr. Campbell. He is qualified certainly. More qualified than T, I 
would dare say. 

Mr. DoRSEx. Anything else, Mr. Sanders ? 

Mr. Saxders. I think it might be fair to say, Mr. Campbell, that 
the thrust of the economic arguments in the white paper issued hj 
the White House would be, that by hindsight the validity of the 
decision to increase the price support was borne out by all of the 
economic factors during that marketing year. For example, the rate 
of increase in the cost of milk to the consumer was at a lesser rate 
in that year than it had been for many years previous. I won't go 
over all of these arguments now, but is it your conclusion that by 



7788 

hindsight the increase was a wiser decision than if the support price 
had been left at the March 12 level ? 

Mr. Campbell, I must frankly reluctantly admit that with hind- 
sight, the decision to increase was the better decision, in view of the 
fact that we have continued to have a dropout of dairymen and a 
reduction in cow numbers. And I have heard Secretary Hardin say 
on many occasions, that on hindsight the decision to increase after 
having first announced no increase was the better decision, based on 
the record of milk production and the price of milk to the consumer. 

Mr. Sanders. Better for whom ? 

Mr. Campbell. Better for the Government and better for the con- 
sumer as well. The law specifically charged that the Secretary of 
Agriculture set the price levels, the support level for milk in order 
to insure an adequate supply to the consumer. And in hindsight, en- 
forcement of that law tells us that the second decision, reversing the 
first decision, was the better decision. And Secretary Hardin has 
expressed that opinion to me on several occasions since and he is 
speaking strictly as an economist having done his Ph. D. degree 
work in dairy marketing. 

Mr. Sanders. Your affidavit, referred to earlier in this interview, 
mentioned that the decision of March 25 was based on a reevaluation 
of the same information, I think, meaning the same economic infor- 
mation which had been 

Mr. Campbell. The facts hadn't changed. 

Mr. Sanders [continuing]. Which had been known as of March 12. 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, the facts had not changed. 

Mr. Sanders. So what you and the other officials of the adminis- 
tration were doing was reanalyzing the information already avail- 
able, reevaluating it with respect to the pressures which were de- 
veloping in Congress ? 

Mr. Campbp^ll. Yes. 

Mr. Sanders. And at the afternoon meeting with the President, 
where he made his final decision, there was consideration of economic 
factors ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, because we did not wish to go above 85 percent 
because of the impact on the Federal Treasury. 

Mr. Sanders. No further questions. 

Mr. Dorsen. Mr. Campbell, I think you indicated in summing up 
with respect to hindsight evaluation, that you must reluctantly agree, 
that in hindsight it was the correct decision. Is that the substance of 
your testimony ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Dorsen. AAHiy do you say reluctantly ? 

Mr. Campbell. I hate to admit I was wrong. The reluctance was on 
my personal admission. 

Mr. Dorsen. I see. So that as of the moment when you and Secre- 
tary Hardin walked into the afternoon meeting you were taking the 
opposite position, but now you are convinced it was the correct posi- 
tion in hindsight ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, and if I may add for the record, this confirms a 
prediction that I made in 1966 or 1967, while still in Georgia before 
joining the U.S. Department of Agriculture, when the dairymen had 
the biggest surplus on hand that we ever had and the highest produc- 



7789 

tion that we had ever had — when I predicted that we were headed 
downhill on milk production and that we were going to have a short- 
age in the United States. I made that personal prediction and was 
laughed at by the professionals in the U.S. Department of Agricul- 
ture. So it was a real bit of consternation for me, you know, to then 
appear on the scene at a higher level. The only reason I relate that 
story to you is that it was my long-range prediction and it is still my 
long-range prediction, that we are going to continue to have a non- 
flow of milk. But in making the decision which we made at this time, 
we already had the market price up there and we did not want to sub- 
stitute the Government for the market price. 

Mr. DoRSEN". Now in talking about the valuation a year or 2 or even 
8 years afterwards, of the economic consequences of the second March 
price decision, we are making evaluations as to the effect of certain 
economic data, the impact of certain things, and of coui-se, as we have 
indicated this is hindsight. But at the afternoon meeting, at which 
time the decision was made to increase the price, was there anyone 
other than yourself and Secretary Hardin who were equipped to con- 
sider the sophisticated economic arguments that had to be taken into 
account under the statute ? 

Mr. Campbell. I am sure there was no one else in the room that had 
lived with the dairy industry as have I and had Secretary Hardin. 
On the other hand if Donald Rice was in that meeting, he would have 
had some basis on which to have made that type decision because of 
all the tools at his command over in the Office of Management and 
Budget, although I am assuming he was at the meeting. I don't re- 
member whether he was or he was not because I don't recall. But if 
he were there he would have been equipped with the tools at his hand 
in the 0MB. 

Mr. DoRSEN. And he was in regular touch with the USDA? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, yes. 

Mr. DoRSEN. So that you were aware of all of his arguments and 
positions well before the March 23 afternoon meeting ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Dorsen. So I gather nothing new was said in that afternoon 
meeting in the way of economic analysis ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, I don't think so at all. We were just wondering 
whether we could hold our position with Congress substituting their 
policy decisionmaking for ours. 

Mr. DoRSEN. I believe the white paper also points out that the long- 
range philosophy of the Republican administration in Agriculture 
was a minimum of governmental interference in the marketplace, is 
that correct? 

Mr. Campbell. We still hold to that philosophy. 

Mr. Dorsen. And this is contrary to the Democratic position on the 
Hill, is that right? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, from the standpoint of parties, you know, party 
attitudes, but you do have variances within the parties, I mean, you've 
got the same type of people within each party : Conservatives, mid- 
dle-of-the-roaders, liberals, on any economic or social issue. So I would 
say you've got people on both sides of that fence because you have Mem- 
bers of Congress, Republicans, that were also introducing bills and 
pressing us. I don't think you can put the party label on it. 



7790 

Mr. DoRSEN. Well, comparing, let us say on the one hand 

Mr. Campbell. Let me go further, because Democratic Presidents 
have also resisted dairymen's effoits, not only the Republican Presi- 
dent, Richard Nixon. 

Mr. DoRSEN. I gather you do subscribe to the fact that the Nixon 
administration policy had been one of reducing the Government's 
involvement ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir ; and I subscribe to that. 

Mr. DoRSEN. Well, at least the congressional leadership on the Demo- 
cratic side was somewhat contrary, is that correct? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, yes; I think it is a fair statement. That is not 
all inclusive though because you have personalities. 

Mr. Dorsen. I realize I am making a general statement, and as a 
general statement I gather you would subscribe to it? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Dorsen. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Sanders. No further questions. 

Mr. Weitz. That concludes today's hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11 :55 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
was adjourned.] 



7791 



Campbell Exhibit No. 1 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUllBIA 



RALPH NADER, et al.. 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

EARL L. BUTZ, et al.. 

Defendants . 



DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) 
WASHINGTON, D. C. ) 



AFFIDAVIT 



Civil Action No. 148-72 



FILED 

MAR 1 3 1972 
JAMES F.DAVEY, Clark 



J. Phil Caiq)bell, being firs : duly sworn on oath deposes and says 
that: 

1. I am the Under Secretary of Agriculture of the United States. 
I have held this office sic.ce January 22, 1969. Before becoming Under 
Secretary of Agriculture, I served 14 years as the Commissioner of 
Agriculture of the State of Georgia. I was a dairy farmer for 
years. As Under Secretary of Agriculture, I participated fully tn the 
dairy price support determinations involved in this litigation. 

2. Section 201 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (7 
U.S.C. 1446), authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to 
make available price support to producers for milk "at such leve '. not 
in excess of 90 per centum nor less than 75 per centum of the paiity 
price therefor as the Secretary determines necessary in order to assure 
an adequate supply." 

Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1954, in re-enacting 

section 201(c), set forth the follo^d.ng Congressional policy: 

The production and use of abundant supplies of high 
quality milk and dairy products are essential to the 
health and general welfare of the Nation; a dependable 
domestic source of supply of these foods in the form of 
high grade dairy herds and modem, sanitary dairy equip- 
ment is important to the national defense; and an economi- 
cally sound dairy industry affects beneficially the economy 
of the country as a whole. It is the policy of Congress 
to assure a stabilized annual production of adequate 
eupplies of milk and dairy products ; to promote the 



7792 



Increased use of these essential foods; to Improve the 
domestic source of supply of milk and butterfat by 
encouraging dairy fanners to develop efficient production 
units consisting of high-grade, disease-free cattle and 
modem sanitary equipment; and to stabilize the economy 
of dairy farmers at a level which will provide a fair 
return for their labor and investment when compared with 
the cost of things that fanners buy. 

The "parity price" for milk and other agricultural commodities Is 
the dollars-and-cents price computed under a statutory formula (7 U.S.C. 
1301(a)) which will give farm commodities the same purchasing power, in 
terms of goods and services bought by fanners, that the commodities had 
in a specified base period. 

Section A06 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, requires the 
Secretary Insofar as practicable to announce the level of support for milk 
"in advance of the beginning of the marketing year or season" (7 U.S.C. 
1426). The level of support so announced may not be reduced. 

3. The question of tha level at which milk should be supported was 
subject to coQslderable debate even before the initial decision, aid it 
was known that there was strong sentiment in favor of a higher leval of 
support. For example, on March 9, 1971 - before the announcement of 
March 12, 1971 - Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota in an adi.ress to 
the Senate, said: 

THE PLIGHT OF OUR DAIRY FARMERS 



"Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, the Associated Press 
reported on March 7 that the Secretary of Agriculture 
is preparing to set milk price supports at $4.92 per 
hundredweight. . . . 



Mr. President, because farm expenses have risen since 
the Secretary announced the support level last year, the 
actual price support level has deteriorated to a little 
more than 80 percent. And the overall parity for Ameri- 
can agriculture at tTiis time is about 69 percent, which is 
only a few percentage points above the alltlme low depression 
period of the thirties. . . . 



The number of dairy fanners has been dropping year 
after year. The per capita consumption of milk has not 
kept up with the amount the producers would like, and the 
price that the farmers are receiving fcr their milk has 
not kept pace with the overall rise ir. production costs 
and costs of ll^'r'.g. 



7793 



I want to make It clear that 1 do not think the price 
indicated in this Associated Press report of $4.92 per 
hundredweight is adequate. Surely it is not adequate 
for the investment of capital and labor that our dairy 
families put into the production of milk. It may not 
even compensate them for the erosion of income resulting 
from lost inflation for the last 12 months. However, 
it is at least a move in the right direction if the 
Secretary should take it. 

I wish to encouraga Secretary Hardin to set the price 
at least at the level indicated in the Associated Press 
dispatch, which is considerably less than a fair and 
reasonable price. And it is my hope that he will go 
substantially higher than the 85-percent price support 
level. (117 Cong. Rec S 2692 (daily ed.)). 

A. Others in the Senate took similar positions before the level of 
$A.66 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk was announced on March 12, 
1971. See, for example, remarks by Senator Hartke on March 9 (117 Cong. 
Rec. S 2711 (daily ed.)); Senator Mondale on March 10, 1971 (117 Cong. Rec. 
S 2849 (daily ed.)); and Senator Humphrey's further remarks on March 10, 
1971 (117 Cong. Rec. 2854-2858 (dally ed.)). 

5. About the same time, similar speeches were being giver In the 

House of Representatives. The Honorable Ed Jones of Tennessee, for 

example, on March 10, 1?'71, said in his extended remarks: 

Mr. JONES of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I read an 
Associated Press article yesterday which indicated that 
Secretary of Agriculture Hardin is considering a dairy 
price support announcement of $4.92 per hundredweight, 
I think this price is too low for our Tennessee dairy 
farmers. It is, I feel sure, too low for any dairy 
farmer. 



By 1980, the Department of Agriculture predicts there 
will be only 200,000 dairy farms and only 110 billion 
pounds of milk production. 



This contraction of numbers is expected to continue. 
This trend is summarized in the following table: 



Number of U. S. farms selling milk and cream 

Year: ■ Thousands 

i9J0 1,959 

1955 1,475 

1960 1,032 

1964 641 

1969 400 

1980 200 



7794 



. Thus, there are now only A00,000 dairy farms in this country. 
Four-fifths of the dairy farms operating in 1950 have gone 
out of business. The Department of Agriculture considers 
that in 1980 there will be only one-tenth as many dairy 
farms as there were in 1950. 

This contraction has not simply been a consolidation of 
dairy herds into larger farms. The number of milk cows on 
U. S. farms has also been declining sharply. In 1950, there 
were almost 22 million milk cows on American dairy farms. By 
1970, this number had decreased by nearly 10 million cows 
to a total of 12.5 million. By 1980, milk cows on farms 
are expected to decrease by another one-third or some 4 
million cows, to a total of 8 or 9 million. 

Decreases in cow numbers have been offset in part by 
Increases in milk production per cow. Thus the decreases 
In number of farms and cows does not always mean an 
absolute reduction in milk production. In the early 
years of the downtrends in numbers, offsetting increases 
In efficiency have tempered its impact upon output. Yet 
efficiency gains are increasingly hard to come by. As 
the number of cows decreases, capacity to maintain 
aggregate output becomes more difficult. Dairy cows 
cannot be replaced quickly and inexpensively and it is 
Increasingly difficult to increase output per cow. 



******* 

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that the Department of 
Agriculture does not intend to sit idly by and watch 
our dairy industry decline into oblivion. Unless dairy 
price supports are set at a level high enough to 
guarantee 90 percent of parity, that is exactly what 
we are inviting. (117 Cong. Rec. E 1689 (daily ed.)). 

Also see the remarks on the floor of the House by Representative 
Thomson of Wisconsin, March 11, 1971. 117 Cong. Rec. H 1473 (dai\y 
ed.). 

6. The decision oi March 12, 1971, to continue the dairy sup.x>rt 
level at $4.66 per hundredweight was based upon information available 
at that time and upon the Secretary of Agriculture's interpretation 
of that information. The later decision of March 25, 1971, to revise 
the support upward to $4.93 vas based on the Secretary's re-evaluation 
of that same information as it related to the legislative goal of 
achieving an adequate supply. The economic data on which price support 
determinations such as this are made rarely support only one conclusion. 
For example, the Commodity Credit Corporation docket of March 3, 1971, 
on which the March 12 announcement was based, showed that the $4.66 
per hundredweight level of support would represent only 80 percent of 



7795 



parity as of the beginning of the marketing year whereas, at the beginning 
of the previous marketing year, $4.66 per hundredweight represented 85 
percent of parity. This demonstrates that dairy farmers had been 
experiencing increasing costs of production during the marketing year. 
The higher such costs, the smaller the return to the farmer for his milk 
and the greater likelihood cf further reductions in the number of dairy 
producers. 

The index of prices paid by farmers for the various goods and 
services they buy are shown for the years 1967 through 1971 in the 
following table: 

Index of Prices Paid by Farmers as of February 15 since 1967 (1967=100)* 

1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 

Prices paid by farmers 
commodities and services. 
Interest, taxes and wage 
rates 99 102 108 113 119 



Prices paid 


99 


101 


105 


110 


115 


Family living items 


99 


102 


107 


112 


117 


Production Items 


100 


101 


104 


109 


113 


Feed 


103. 


96 


96 


101 


108 


Feeder livestock 


98 


102 


109 


125 


124 


Interest 


100 


110 


119 


128 


138 


i 
Taxes 


100 


111 


124 


134 


144 


Wage rates 


94 


103 


114 


124 


130 



* These figures as of February 15 of each year are expressed a\. a 
percentage of the average of the prices during all of the base year 1967. 
Source: Based on SRS Agricultural Prices (Pr 1) for February, 1967 through 
1971. 

Similarly, the docket disclosed that while the downtrend ia the number 
of milk cows on farms had slowed, cow numbers did continue to decline. 
During the previous 5 years, U. S. milk production had been trending down- 
ward. U. S. milk production had dropped from a high of 126.9 billion 
pounds in 1964-65 to a low of 116.5 billion pounds in 1969-70. Although 
there had been some small and somewhat erratic monthly production increases 
In 1970, they were by no means conclusive. These facts suggest t^le 
possibility that further reductions in the nvmiber of dairy animals might 
so , > reduce milk production as to leave an insufficient quantity of milk 



7796 



callable not only for connnerclal consumption but also to meet the ne^jg 
of the domestic food assistance and other programs. Continued reduct^^^ns 
In the number of dairy cows would have a serious impact on the supply ^f 
milk. Although increased production was reflected in the docket, it vas 
not sufficient to provide any substantial margin of confidence. The 
support increase of 38 cents per hundredweight during the previou;s 
marketing year had apparently just begun to bring about a halt in th^ 
sharp production declines. The further increase to $A.93 - continuing 
the level at about 85 percent of parity - would provide assurance ag^itvBt 
the resumption of a downward trend in milk production. 

The docket also shows that uncommitted CCC inventories of cheeae \rere 
about 7 million pounds on January 31, 1971, and that CCC purchases of cheesy 
for the 1971-72 marketing year were projected at 75 million pounds, this 
quantity of cheese was inadequate in view of the demand for cheese 1|\ 
DSDA family feeding and child nutrition programs. An additional 11 wiiHon 
pounds were needed to fulfill these program requirements. At the time the 
docket was considered, it was contemplated that the additional chaeae 
required would be purchased for program outlets under the authority of 
section 709 of the Agricultural Act of 1965 (7 U.S.C. 14A6a-l) . Jectlon 
709 authorizes the Secretary to use funds of CCC to purchase suf'.lclent 
supplies of dairy products at market prices to meet the requlren. mta for 
schools (other than fluid milk) , and for domestic relief dlstrlbvtloR, 
community action, and such other programs as are authorized by la*, when 
insufficient stocks are acquired through price support operations for thes« 
purposes. However, the exercise of this authority at times when (heeae 
factories are paying more than the support price for iranufacturlng milk 
tends to disrupt the usual flow of milk going to manufacturers of butter 
and nonfat dry milk. The quantity of cheese which would be purchaaed 
under the price support program as a result of the higher level of support 
for manufacturing milk would permit domestic food assistance needs for chetgg 
to be filled without having to use section 709 authority. 

The Agricultural Act of 1970, enacted shortly before consideration of 
'the 1971-72 support program, had suspended the mandatory requirement to 



7797 



support the price of butterfat as a separate commodity. By virtue of this 
change in the law, the Secretary could establish that combination of prices 
for butter and nonfat dry milk which would result in a value equivalent 
to the price support for milk, yet not add unduly to the CCC Inventory of 
butter, for which there are fewer outlets. Since, as the docket pointed 
out, there was a desire to reduce butter prices to more competitive levels, 
at the time the Secretary increased the support level for manufacturing 
milk he did not announce a concomitant increase in the price of butter. 
Although it was necessary to raise the price of nonfat dry milk produced 
by the same plants which produced butter in order that the combined value 
of the two products made from 100 pounds of milk would be equal to the 
support price for milk plus manufacturing costs, it was felt that the 
resulting increased inventories of nonfat dry milk could easily be 
utilized to meet anticipated program needs. 

Moreover, the estimates on which price support for dairy products 
is determined are at best uncertain. For example, milk produ :tion is 
measured in terms of over 100 billion pounds. An error of on?.y 1 percent 
in the estimate of production for the marketing year could rejult in 
over a billion pounds less of milk available during the marketing year. 
The estimates are, of course, based on normal weather conditions; adverse 
weather conditions would result In lower production than estimated. Even 
if the price farmers will receive for milk is known in advance , predicting 
their response in terms of production is, at best, uncertain aid difficult. 
This is because price, Important as it may be, is only one consideration 
which of ten-times may be overshadowed and outweighed by other factors such 
as production costs, availability of labor, availability and cost of 
capital, age and health of the producer, the attractiveness of alternative 
opportunities - both on and off the farm - and other factors. 

Estimating consumers' response to price changes in dairy products 
likewise is difficult. The problem is compounded by the fact that estimates 
must be made of not only fluid milk consumption, but also the consumption 
of all products manufactured from milk and the milk equivalent of those 
products. 



7798 



Another Important consideration is the fact that milk 
production is not turned on at will. While cows can be slaughtered 
and production turned off nearly as soon as producers decide to 
disi-ontinue dairy farming, a minimum of three years is required 
after decisions are made before production can be increased. The 
ges.ation period of a cow is about 9 months and another two years 
or more may be required before the heifer (female) calves can be 
bred, reproduce, and themselves begin to give milk. This time 
lag in restoring milk production is well illustrated by the fact, 
referred to above, that only after five years with price support 
levels ranging from 83 percent to 89 percent of parity, followin; 
a period when price support was at or about the legal minimum, 
did production begin- to increase. 

It must also be borne in mind when determining the level o: 
support necessary to assure an adequate supply of milk, that the 
CCC inventory stocks of dairy products are a significant part <•£ 
our nation's food reserves. It is from this supply that foods - 
Including dairy products - are drawn by State and local goverrjients 
In the event of national disasters such as hurricanes, floods and 
tornadoes. 

Against such a background, the Secretary of Agriculture mist make his 
determination each year as to what support will be needed to a!:sure the 
adequate supply required by the statute. Needless to say, he las no magic 
formula to provide him with an unfailingly accurate and unchanging answer 
to his problem, and he must rely upon his own knowledge and judgment. The 
Secretary of Agriculture in March 1971 was extraordinarily qualified to 
deal with the dairy price support question. An eminent agricultural 
economist himself by virtue of his education, training, and distinguished 



7799 



experience, he understood the economic intricacies and imponderables which 
surrounded the problem. 

7. Notwithstanding the existence of some factors from which it could 
have been concluded that a higher level price support was necessary to 
assure an adequate supply, on March 12, 1971, the initial announcement 
was issued establishing thr support price of $4.66 per cwt., which was the 
same dollars-and-cents level as was in effect for the previous year but a 
lower percentage of parity since the costs of goods and services bought by 
farmers had increased since the previous year. A level of price support / 
could always bel. Increased, but as pointed out in paragraph 2, once announced 
the level of support may not be reduced. 

8. Subsequent to the announcement of the $4.66 per cwt. ]»rice support 
on March 12, it was strongly urged by various representatives of the dairy 
industry that the support level be increased, because of increased 
production costs to farmers. A number of bills were introdu:ed to increase 
the level of price support for milk. On March 19, 1971, Setator Humphrey 
introduced S. 1294 to increase the rate of price support to at least 85 
percent but not more than 90 percent of parity. 117 Cong. Rec. S. 3379 
(daily ed.). Senators Nelson and Hughes sponsored S. 1277, a similar 
bill. 117 Cong. Rec. S. 3455 (daily ed."^. Some 21 like bills were 
introduced in the House of Representatives. 

9. Following Secretary Hardin's March 12 announcement of $4.66 there 
was a continuing appraisal of the cost-price squeeze on diirymen and 

its effect on dairy farmers and milk production. On March 25, 1971, the 

Secretary announced that the support level would be established at $4.93 

per cwt., which maintained the level at 85 percent of parity - the same 

percentage-of -parity level which had been in effect the previous year. 

Such action was not novel or unusual. Price support determinations for / 

particular marketing years had been increased in the past even after the 

marketing years had begun. Such prior actions are summarized below: 

Marketing Year April 1 Date and Change 

1956-57 $3.15 April 18 - $3.25 

1960-61 $3.06 September 17 - $3.22 (Congress) 

March 10 - $3.40 
1966-67 $3.50 June 30 - $4.00 



7800 



10. The actual results of the program have confirmed that the 
Secretary's judgment that a higher price support was necessary In order 
to assure an adequate supply was correct. As of January 31, 1972, CCC's 
inventories of dairy products were not only considerably lower than they 
were a year ago, they also are about as low as they have been for a number 
of years. This is illustrated by the following table: 



CCC Uncommitted Inventory as of 
January 31, 1962-72* 



Marketing year 


Butter 


Cheese 
Million pounds 


Nonfat dry milk 






1962 


188.2 


52.3 


222.6 


1963 


327.5 


43.7 


521.6 


1964 


132.8 


28.5 


272.5 


1965 


20.1 


4.8 


113.5 


1966 


' 3.7 


— 


26.7 


1967 


21.0 


2.2 


28.9 


1968 


124.7 


67.9 


208,4 


1969 


73.0 


23.1 


221.1 


1970 


35.2 


— 


116.5 


1971 


61.8 


6.6 


18.7 


. 1972 


37.1 


1.9 


1.^ 



*Sources: USDA Press Releases of CCC Dairy Price Support Ac'iivitles 
for January, 1962 through 1972. 



CCC Docket MCP 98a, Milk Price Support Program, 1971-72, and CCC Docket 
MCP 98a, Amendment 1, Milk Price Support Program, 1971-72, are attached 
hereto, marked Exhibits A and B, respectively. 





^ 



J. Phil Cafaphell 



St&scribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for the 
District of Columbia, this /a''^^ day of March, 1972. 



Notary Public 

My Conuclssioo Ezpires S« Jt M. 197* 



7801 

Campbkll Exhibit No. 2 
UNDER SECRETARY CAMPBELL CAUTIONS DAIRY FARMERS 

[U.S. Department of Agriculture press release] 

State College, Pa., 

March 22. 1071. 
Under Secretary of Agriculture J. Phil Campbell today told U.S. dairy farmers 
that, the decisions they make this year can l)e critical in shaping the future of 
the dairy industry over the next 10 years. 

Speaking at the Sixth Annual Meeting of the National Dairy Herd Improve- 
ment xVssociation, Inc., on "The Future of Dairying," Mr. Campbell said : 

•'The decisions made now and during the next 12 months as to the amount of 
milk produced in the United States will have far-reaching effects. If dairymen 
adju.st realistically to market conditions they can enjoy relative prosperity. If 
they fail to adjust, depressed prices will result and it might be impossible for 
most dairymen to meet production costs and have enough net dollars left over 
to maintain a decent standai-d of living. 

"For the past five or six years I have been predicting l)etter times for dairying, 
aud during this period conditions have improved. Supply and demand have 
come into mudi better balance and prices have responded. 

"Tonight, however, I must strongly urge caution and serious thinking on 
the part of dairymen and their leaders." 

Pointing out that, among U.S. livestock producers, only dairy farmers and 
wool protlucers have government programs to help determine their welfare, 
and Under Secretary said, "All other livestock producers have consistently main- 
tained opposition to any suggestion of Congressional action which would regu- 
late the supply or jjrice of beef cattle, swine, poultry or poultry products. 

"Through the years dairymen have had Federal or State milk marketing 
ordei's to set minimum prices for Class I milk, and in .some States to establish 
quotas or milk bases. In addition, a svipport price on milk for processing or manu- 
facturing purposes has guaranteed a minimum price for milk. 

"I have strongly defended these state and Fedei-al programs for dairy farm- 
ers. I have done .so because the production of milk is unique among all farm en- 
terprises. First, milk must be produced under rigid sanitary conditions estab- 
lished by law — and this is as it shoidd be. 

"Second, dairying is an entei-prise recpiiring a large capital investment, ap- 
proaching .$2,000 per cow, with low financial returns — so low. in fact, that they 
do not permit the recovery of the capital investment during the occupational 
lifetimes of most dairymen. 

"Third, dairy production is the most confining of all types of farming. The 
cows will not stay milked — it's twice a day. every day, including Saturday, 
Sunday, the Fourth of July, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. 

"Fourth, starting from scratch, no dairy farm operation, ludess it's the feed 
lot type in which all the feed and the cows are purchased annually — can be 
sati.sfaetorily established in less than five years. 

"Fifth, dairy farmers can't sluip around from market to market seeking a 
better price as producers of other commodities can. Milk is a perishable prod- 
uct. It must go to market regularly. It can't be stored by the farmer or hauled 
from one town or one street corner to another and taken out of the tank and 
put back in as you can do with cotton, corn, wheat, fruits, vegetables, and most 
other commodities. 

"Finally, dairying is a lifetime business that a person does not jump into and 
out of every few years. Not only does it take years to establish but the life cycle 
of the cow is a strong factoi'. The cow has only one calf a year, and every other 
year it's a bull which doesn't add to the milking l>erd. 

"For these reasons among others, I have always defencfc'd State and Federal 
programs to assist dairy farmers. Wfthout such programs eventually there would 
not be enough milk produced for the consumers of this Nation.'" 

With the help of these programs, but mainly because dairymen made the 
production changes the market called for, dairy income has improved steadily 
for the past six years, Mr. Campliell continued. "P>eginning in U)t)."i, every year 
has seen a decline in the production of milk until 1070 which brought an upswing 
in production. Whether the increased output last year resulted from decisions 
by dairy farmers based on expectations of profits or from some such factors 
as mild weather and better than average forage, we do not know," 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 - 18 



7802 

Reviewing tlie history of tlie 1960's, Mr. Campbell pointed out that in 1961 
U.S. milk production climbed to a near all-time high of 126 l)illi()n pounds, 
causing the Federal Government to purchase more than $600 million worth of 
milk products from July 1961 to June 1962. In 1902, the support price of milk was 
reduced from .$8.40 per hundredweight to $3.11 in order to discourage continued 
overproduction. As a result of reduced prices and other factors, milk production 
dropped from the all-time high of 127 billion pounds in 1964 to 116.3 billion 
pounds in 1969. But last year production swung upward to 117.4 billion pounds, 
and a further moderate increase is expected in 1971. 

"Dairymen will again be in serious trouble if milk production during the next 
few years increases beyond the capacity of the market to absorb it," the Under 
Secretary said. 

"In fact, overproduction in the 1970's would be even more burdensome than 
it was during the early 1960's, because higher support prices will increase gov- 
ernment costs i^er 100 pounds of milk removed from the market. For example, 
CCC costs for the removal of dairy products during the current fiscal year are 
estimated at about $380 million^ — and this is for what is regarded as a very 
manageable surplus. 

"I w^nt to cite a little more history — and point out that it seems to be re- 
peating itself. Do you recall that when Secretary Benson took oflSce in 1953 
d^airymen had been pressing for high support prices V Milk production and gov- 
ernment stocks shot up and dairy prices and cash receipts went down. And 
the support price had to be lowei'ed. 

"AVhen Secretary Freeman took office, the same thing happened. Dairymen 
pressed for higher supports and got them. And again production and stocks 
soared and farm prices for milk fell below the support level and the support 
had to be lowered. 

"When Secretary Hardin took office, dairymen again sought higher supports 
and last year production turned up again. Atlmittedly, the situation is not as 
bAd as it was in the early 1950"s and early 1960's. But in the light of this his- 
tory. I must urge dairymen not to be their own worst enemies and push for 
higher supiwrts at this time. Let's watch the situation carefully for the next 
few UKvntlis until we get a clearer picture as to whether a new trend of in- 
creased production is becoming establi>+hed.'' 

Farmers today have recently acquired other tools which they have fought 
for through many frustrating years, the Under Secretary said. "I urge you 
to look at these tools closely to see how you can best use them. 

"First, under the Agricultural Act of 1970, Class I base plans can be estab- 
lished in Federal market areas. These base plans can influence production up- 
ward or downward ^s conditions dictate and allow each dairyman to tailor 
his output to market reciuii't'meut. 

"Second, the new daii\v promotion legislation signed into law by President 
Nixon in January gives dairymen the opportunity to determine whether they 
want a check-off system to be established for the promotion of milk sales. 
This provides hope of reversing the decreasing trend of per capita milk con- 
sumption in America. 

"Third, dairymen have l^een pushing for an economic formula for pricing 
milk. However, the formula proposed in hearings last year was formulated 
without Department consultation and it api)ears to be so constructed as to 
have unnecessary price inflation tendencies built into it. Surely the dairy in- 
dustry has suffered enough from infl,ation, not to promote more of it. The 
Department is more than willing to work with dairymen to i)erfect a better 
pricing formula." 

With reasonable foresight on the part of the prtKlueers, the dairy industry 
can work out its present problems and take advantage of the Nation's economic 
growth during the 1970's, Mr. Campbell said. 

"Tlie future of dairying over the next 10 years will be determined in part by the 
addition of 25 million persons to our national pojiulation and by a 50 percent 
increase in consumer purchasing power. This, plu.s the expansion of food aid and 
enactment of President Nixon's Family Assistance Program, will me,an a sub- 
stantial increase in demand for dairy foods. 

"On the other hand, the number of dairy farms selling milk in the ITnited 
States may be about 200,000 in 1980, compared with around 400,000 t(Klay. 
Cash receipts per commercial dairy farm in 1!)S0 may be roughly triple the cur- 
rent level. Even with rising production costs, this should mean a substantially 
improved income picture for commercial producers." 



7803 

Another reason for optimism about ^igricnlture's long-term future is the 
New Federalism proposetl by President Nixon, Mr. Campbell said. Tliis in- 
volves .sharing, decentrali/ation, and a reorganization of the Federal Government. 

"For the past third of a century we have seen an increasing centralization 
of power in Washington. As a result, too many decisions are being made by 
people far removed from the local situatioiL'i. This is one of the reasons for 
the gap between promise and performance in government. You will note that 
the 1970 Farm x\ct gives much more decisionmaking to farmers. Thi^s is one of 
its great advantages. 

"This Administration wants to move toward a new partnership between the 
Federal Government and the States and local units. Local decisionmaking 
builds stronger, more stable, and more progressive State and local govennnents. 

"These changes are vital to America ,and they deserve the support of every 
citizen,'' he said. 



THUBSDAY, JUNE 13, 1974 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee ox 
Presidential Campaign Activities, 

Washington^ B.C. 
The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 :15 a.m. in roon) 
G-334, Dirksen Senate Office Building. 

Present : David M. Dorsen, assistant chief counsel ; Alan S. Weitz, 
assistant majority counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority 
counsel. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Kalmbach, I first want the record to reflect that 
this is a continuation of your previous testimony, and you under- 
stand that you are still under oath. 

TESTIMONY OF HERBERT W. KALMBACH— Resumed 

Mr. Kalmbach. I do so understand. 

Mr. AVeitz. Now, you last testified before the committee in executive 
session on March 22, 1974, and there are several points, I understand, 
that you would like to correct, or complete with respect to the record on 
that date. 

First, I believe, you testified on page 7617 with respect to a con- 
versation you had on or about April 4, 1972, in connection with a 
representative of Associated ]Milk Producers, and at that point you 
referred to a conversation with Mr. Jacobsen and a request that you 
contact somebody in the White House in connection with the anti- 
trust suit then pending. 

I take it now that you recall there was just an error in the testimony 
and that it was Dr. Mehren, not Mr. Jacobsen with whom you spoke. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Can we go off the record ? 

Mr. Weitz. Sure. 

[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. Weitz. I'm sorry, it actually was an error in my question, I said 
Mr. Jacobsen, but you understood and were referring to Dr. Mehren; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. And it was Dr. INIehren that you spoke of on April 4, 
and it was he that referred to your contacting someone in the White 
House in connection with the antitrust suit. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct, and I simply wanted the record to be 
clear that it was Dr. Mehren I was talking to during that conversation 
on April 4, 1972. 

Mr. Weitz. I understand, that was my error in the question. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, just simply to make sure that the record was 
not confusing. 

Mr. Weitz. Second, you also testified on that occasion with respect to 
your contact with Milton Semer in 1969, and the delivery to you of 

(7805) 



7806 

$100,000, and the discussion of an additional possible $150,000 that 
year, and stating three objectives to you. 

Could you now tell us, specify specifically t}\Q relationship between 
those contributions and on the one hand, his desire to seek an audience 
and meeting with White House officials and on the other, specification 
of certain objectives of his clients. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. Simply to make the record clear, when I met 
with Mr. Semer in 1069, up to and including the time on August 2, 
1969, when he actually delivered to me $100,000 in cash as a contribu- 
tion from his milk producer clients, it was the clear understanding in 
exchange for this contribution, that I would arrange for Mr. Semer to 
be able to see certain individuals within the adminivStration before 
whom he would be able to plead his case on behalf of his clients. 

Now, the objectives of his clients were stated and are reflected in 
my diaries, and T think are clearly reflected in my diaries on August 
2, 1969, although I remember that my diaries, I think, reflect, that I 
had earlier understood the three objectives. 

But I want to make it clear that there was no underetanding be- 
tween Mr. Semer and myself that the considv^ration for the $100,000 
contribution Avasthe attainment of these objectives; it was sim])ly that 
he would be able to meet with certain people within the administra- 
tion, and before those people he would be able to plead the case of his 
clients relative to the attainment of these objectives. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Haldeman and othere at the "\'\niite House were 
aware of the contribution, were they not? 

Mr. Kalmbach. They were. 

Mr. Weitz. They were aware at the time before and shortly after 
it was made that Mr. Semer and his clients wanted, in connection with 
that contribution, to meet with them. 

Mr. Kalmbach. To meet with various people within the admin- 
istration, and particularly within the Wliite House group. 

Mr. Weitz. And Mr. Haldeman and INIr. Stans and others were 
aware of the objectives of Mr. Semer and his clients, as stated to you. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is my recollection, yes, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. And paiticularly in Mr. Haldeman's case, he approved 
the receipt of the contribution. 

Mr. Kalmbach. He did. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Kalmbach, since your last appearance here, have 
you undertaken to continuue searching your records and files for any 
documents that relate to your testimony before the committee ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I have. 

Mr. Weitz. And since that time, have you found certain documents 
that do relate to matters to which you testified ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I have. 

Mr. Weitz. Let me show you a copy of a letter dated April 17, 1969, 
from you to the Honorable Maurice H. Stans. Is this a copy of a 
letter that you have uncovered in your continuing search? 

Mr. Kalmbach. It is. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you tell us the circiunstances of your finding that 
letter? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. I had, in connex'tion with a recent appearance 
relative to a motion in the district, court where I appeared on behalf 
of the special prosecutor relative to those arguments, I had informed 



7807 

the special prosecutor before my appearance, and in fact was ques- 
tioned durinof my appearance on tlie stand relative to a copy of a 
letter that I liad been o^lven by the attorney of Mr. Stans several 
months ago, at the time that I Avas being deposed in the Nader v. Butz 
suit. 

I advised the special prosecutor following my appearance on that 
day that I would do my best to find the copy of that letter that I felt 
was somewhere in my records at home. 

After I returned to California, and for several weeks preliminary to 
m:^ return from California this week, I did search my records, and 
although I did not find the copy of that particular letter, I did find 
three matters, three copies that were copies that should be transmitted 
and were in fact transmitted to the special prosecutor's oflice and to 
your staff. 

Mr. Weitz. Let me mark this letter which you have identified. I will 
mark it as exhibit 3 ^ for your testimony. 

[The letter referred to Avas marked Kalmbach exhibit No. 3.^] 

JNIr. Weitz. Now, in your previous testimony here on ^Slarch 22 you 
were asked whether you recalled a conmiitment by Mr. Mulcahy of 
$150,000 to the Republican National Committee; and at that point you 
said that at that time you did not. 

Now, this letter, exhibit 1, refers to a commitment of $25,000 in 
respect to a 1969 victory dinner and $100,000 in the 1970 campaign 
from Mr. jVIulcahy. Does this refresh your recollection as to your 
involvement in such a commitment from Mr. ^lulcahy ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes; it refreshes my recollection that I was 
advised — as is set forth in that letter — that I was advised by Mr. Mul- 
cahy that he was conti'ibuting $25,000 to the dinner in the spring of 
196*9, which was, as I remember, a Republican National Finance Com- 
mittee fundraising dinner; and further, that Mr. Mulcahy was pledg- 
ing — and was simply advising me, as I remember it — that he Avas 
pledging $1(M).000 to the Roi)ublican National Finance Committee for 
the various congressional campaigns in 1970. 

And then, in my letter to then Secretary Stans, I simply reflected 
that understanding in that letter. 

Mr. Weitz. Noav, in your continuing search for documents relative 
to the testimony, since your last appearance here, have you also uncov- 
ered another document Avhich appears to be an itinerary for several 
days in March 1971 ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I did. 

Mr. Weitz. Let me show you this and ask if this is a copy of the 
itinerary Avhich j^ou found. 

Mr. Kalmbach. It is. 

Mr. Weitz. Let me mark it exhibit 4 to your testimony. 

[The document referred to Avas marked Kalmbach exhibit No. 4. -] 

Mr. Weitz. Let me ask you, can you tell us the circumstances of your 
finding this document? 

Mr. Kalmbach. The circumstances are the same as T related relatiA'e 
to my finding the letter to Mr. Stans Avhich pertained and had refer- 
ence to Mr. Mulcahy's pledge to the Republican National Fina^ice Com- 
mittee programs in 1969-70. 

^ Kalmbiich exhibits 1 ami 2 appear iu testimony of Maroli 22 ; see pp. 7625 and 7624. 
•^ See p. 7816. 



7808 

Mr. Weitz. All right. Now, I would like to direct your attention to 
page 2 of the document, at the bottom. 

First let me ask you, do you recall when this document, the original 
of the document was prepared ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I do not recall with particularity when it was pre- 
pared ; but it would be my impression and clear understandin<x that 
it was prepared, probably, on March 23, 1971, immediately prior to 
the time that I left for the flight to Washington, which was early on 
the morning of March 24, 1971. 

Mr. Weitz. The itinerary, exhibit 4, indicates that on Wednesday, 
March 24, 1971, you were to depart from Los Angeles at 8 :30 in the 
morning. Did you take that flight and leave at 8 :30 in the morning, 
or approximately 8 :30, from Los Angeles ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I'm certain that I did. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you go to your office first that day, or did you go 
to the airport directly from your home ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I have no clear recollection of that, although my 
impression would be that, inasmuch as it is an hour or II/2 hour drive 
from my home to the airport in Los Angeles, that most likely I did not 
go to the office but directly from my home, leaving perhaps at 6 :30 in 
the morning, to get to Los Angeles air^wrt bv 8 o'clock preparatory to 
my flight at 8 :30. 

Mr. Weitz. And did you take a copy of the Avritten agenda, itinerary 
with you on that trip ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes ; I would think that I certainly did. 

Mr. Weitz. That was the purpose of having it prepared, for your 
ttip. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. Who was your secretary at that time ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Mrs. Annette Harvey. 

Mr. Weitz. And did she, as a custom, arrive at the office as_ early as 
6, or 6 :30 in the morning ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No; and that is the reason that I feel that this was 
prepared on the 23d, and I received it on the 23d, preparatory to my 
leaving early on the 24th. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, on page 2, at the bottom of the document, it refers 
to, or indicates "ITWK/ah" ; and beneath that, "3/24/71". Now, the 
"ITWK" refers to you ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. And the "ah" to your secretary, Mrs. Harvey. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, the "3/24/71" normally would indicate the date 
of the document is March 24, 1971. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. I take it from what you say that you are almost certain 
that the document — you are certain the document was not prepared 
on the 24th, but was prepared prior to that day. 

Mr. Kalmbach. I am as certain as I can be that it was not, just 
on the logic involved. 

Mr. Weitz. And, is it your best recollection that it was prepared, 
based on the facts in connection with that trip on the 23d, the day 
before vour flight ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Excuse me ? 



7809 

Mr. Weitz. Is it your best recollection tliat tlie doctiment was pre- 
pared the day before you left, that is, March 23d? 

Mr. Kalmbacii. Tliat is my best recollection, Mr. Weitz. Excuse 
nie, can we go ott' the record ? 
[Discussion off the record.] 

Mr. WErrz. Now, the itinerary reflects your scheduled meetings and 
appointments for Marcli 24 and 25, and the 2 days following that, 
also ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Kalmbacii. That is cori-ect. 

Mr. Weitz. What is your best recollection, now, of the source for 
that information; did you talk with someone who gave you the in- 
formation to prepare the agenda for the trip to Washington? 

Mr. Kalmbacji. I think I talked to several people in order to pre- 
pare this agenda for this trip. 
Mr. Weitz. Was one of those persons John Elirlichman ? 
]\Ir. Kalmbacii. It would be my best recollection that it was. 
Mr. Weitz. And is it your recollection that you spoke with him on 
March 23 ? 

Mr. Kalmbacii. That would be my best recollection. 
Mr. Weitz. Now, on March 24, written on the agenda there are two 
meetings that I would like to direct your attention to. One is at 5 :30 
p.m. and indicates, "Meeting with John Ehrlichman in his office." 
That is the first meeting listed after your scheduled arrival in Wash- 
ington. Did you go and meet ]\Ir. Ehrlichman that afternoon after 
you arrived in Washington ? 

Mr. Kal]mbacii. That is my recollection. 

Mr. Weiiz. And was the purpose of that meeting to discuss subse- 
quent meetings scheduled for you while you wei-e in Washington? 
Mr. Kalmbacii. I'm not certain, Mr. Weitz, as to the purpose of that 
meeting; although it's logical to me that we did discuss other meetings 
that I would be having in Washington, including a luncheon meeting 
that I had with Air. Ehrlichman the following day at the White House. 
Mr. Weiiz. Now. of tlie meelings and other appointments listed in 
3^our itinerary, the only meeting foi' which the persons you wej'e to 
meet are not 'listed is the 11 p.m. meeting on the 24th. Was this also, 
I take it, something you learned of on the 2.')d, that the meeting was 
scheduled, but not necessarily the participants? 
Mr. Kalmbacii. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. Did you learn that from Mr. Ehrlichman? 
Mr. Kalmbacii. I don't have an independent recollection of that, 
but, again, it would be my impression that I learned it from Mr. 
Ehrlicliman. 

Mr. Weitz. Now, the 11 p.m. meeting listed in youi- itinerary, is it 
your best recollection that that meeting is the meeting to which you 
testified, that took place after the Republican fundraising dinner on 
the 24th between you, Mr. Chotiner and Mr. Nelson ? 
Mr. Kalmbacii. It is. 

Mr. Weitz. Could you tell us your best recollection as to when you 
fir-st learned that yoi^ would be meeting with Mr. Chotiner and Mr. 
Ne ju, that is, the '-a'-ticular pai-ticipants of the meeting? 

■s^y. Kalmbacii. V:i not certain on this point, :Mr. Weitz; but, it is 
my impression that 1 learned of my meeting, forthcoming meeting, 



7810 

with Mr. Chotincr and Mv. Xelson from Afr. Ehvlicliin:m ;i( oiif :. ::',o 
iiieetiiiii- tliat afleriiooii. 

Afr. Wr.TTZ. And al ilmi lini<\ tl<> \i>\i have a rccollccllon <ji" what lie 
told voii ilic |'iir|«)sc of tliat II o"clin-K- im^rm<j- would l>e ^ 

Afi-. K \i.Mi",\( ir. No: I dou'l have uii indepondcnt lerollectioii of 
tliat , >rr. Wchz. But, a^ain. it's my impression that I was advised that 
I would receive a reaffirmation of the pledge from the milk producers 
at that late mcotinc: on the 24th. 

l\[r. AVr.TTz. That is the $2-million pledge to the Presidential cam- 
pa ign? 

iSIr. K.vL^rRACTT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Wfitz. Were yon al-o ad\iH(Ml. or is it your undersianding, 
based on the <'ircnrnst;nuTs of (he niecMino- later. ;iiid of your itinerary 
S''t forth 1)0 fore you loft, that Ml". Ehrlichnuin advised you to the like- 
lilHvxi of a price-sui)port increase, or the actuality of a price-support 
increased 

Mr. Kalmbacit. I'm not certain on that, Mr. "Weitz. 

Mr. AVErrz. Now, when you testified here on March 22. 1974, you 
indicated that with respect to the mcctino- with Mr. Chotinei' and 
]\rr. Nelson, that you thought at that time Mr. Chotiner had asked 
you at tlie dinnoi- to meet Avith him following the dinner. 

I take it now that your recollection, based on this document, is re^ 
fi'eshed. so that your present recollection is that it Avas Mt*. Ehrlich- 
man. prioi- to the diimer. who had informed you of the meeting and 
the purpose of the meeting? 

INfr. Kalmracti. That is correct. 

]\Ir. Wfjtz. And, is it also true, nonetheless, that at the meeting 
itself, at 11 o'clock or sometime after the dinner. INIr. Chotiner did, 
as you testifiod. state that tlie i)ledge was being reaffirmed in view of 
the price-support increase, as you testified^ 

Ml'. KALAri'.Acu. Yes: at that moetiuo- T was advised that the ]>rice- 
supi>ort decision was to be announced the next day. that is my recollec- 
tion; and. that in view of that fact, the pledge of the milk producers 
of $2 million to the President's 1072 campaign Avas in fact being re- 
affirmed. 

Also. T should add that. Avhereas prior to this time that T found this 
itinerary, agenda, in my home, T had been inuler the impression that 
IMr. Cliotiuer and /or ^Nfr. Xolsoii had adA'ised mo tliat thov had been 
asked by Mr. Ehi-li'-hman to meet Avith me. 

It is noAV possible that I liad been advised, or Avas advised by Mr. 
Ehrlichman to meet Avith them, and I Avas not so advised by ^Nlr. Choti- 
ner and Mr. Nelson. But, it could Iuiat been either oi- both. But^ I 
Avanted to make it clear that that could have been made knoAvn to me 
at the 5:80 mooting by Mr. Ehrlichman : and perhaps that was not so 
stated at the later meeting that evening. 

Mr. Wi.iTZ. 1 )Ut. in any event. Avliother from Afr. Cliotiner. or Avhethor 
directly from Mr. Ehrlicliman. it is youi" i>resent recollection that 
the meeting after the Tvei)ublican dinner Avitli A[r. Chotiner and Mr. 
Nelson Avas arranged and took place at the request of Mr. Ehrlichman. 

Mr. Kalmbac'ii. Yes. 

Mr. Wr.nz. And the matters that took place at that meeting, the 
matters discussed were as you testified here l>eforc, other than the facts 
as you corrected them today. 



7811 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 

Mr. Weitz. And I believe you also testified that the next day you 
met with Mr. Ehrlichman for lunch and that aside, and apait from 
the others with whom you met, you told Mr. Ehrlichman that you had 
met with Mr. Chotiner and Mr. Nelson, and the pledge had been 
reaffirmed. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct, and my recollection is that I ad- 
vised Mr. Ehrlichman of this reaffirmation in an aside, either immedi- 
ately before, or immediately after my luncheon meeting with Mr. 
Ehrlichman, which was at 1 o'clock in the afternoon of March 25, 
1971. 

Mr. Weitz. Mr. Sanders? 

Mr. Sanders. You have testified you had discussed with Mr. Halde- 
man the $100,000 contribution by Mr. Semer in advance of 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr, Saxdeks. I don't Ix^lieve you told us, or gave us some concept 
of how long before the delivery that occurred, or the circumstances 
of your conversation with him. 

Mr. Kalmbach. I think, Mr. Sanders, that my diaries indicate that 
I talked to a number of people, including Mr: Haldeman, following 
my initial contact with Mr. Semer in the spring of 1969 ; and those 
contacts were continuous up to the date that I actually received the 
contribution, which was on August 2, 1969. 

Mr. Sanders. The three points of interest, three objectives of Mr. 
Semer, as expressed to you, then, had been made known to you by 
Semer in advance of the time of the delivery of the mone}^? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, sir; I think that my notes so reflect that fact. 

Mr. Sanders. And I believe you indicated that Mr. Haldeman was 
made aware of these objectives of Mr. Semer, and that he assented to 
appointments being scheduled for the presentation of those objectives. 

Mr. Kalmbach. I want to make it clear, Mr. Sanders, that when I 
spoke to Mr. Haldeman about my contact and contacts with Mr. Semer 
relative to this contribution by the milk producers, that I made it 
clear to Mr. Haldeman that Mr. Semer had been referred to me by At- 
torney General Mitchell; aiid fhat my purpose in speaking to Mr. 
Haldeman was to get his authoi^ization for me to : First, receive this 
contribution from this contributor, the milk producers, through Mr. 
Semer, their attorney ; and second, that in return for that contribution 
it would be possible for me to arrange for several appointments with 
various people within the White House in order for Mr. Semer and the 
attorneys for the milk producers to meet with the White House of- 
ficials to present a case on their behalf. 

I never at any time indicated to Mr. Haldeman, as I remember it, 
that the quid pro quo for the receipt of this contribution would be the 
attainment of the three stated objectives. 

Mr. Sanders. Did Mr. Haldeman ever give you any understanding 
that their objectives would be met ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, he did not. 

Mr. Sanders. Did Mr. Ehrlichman ever give you any understanding 
in advance of the Semer delivery that the objectives would be met? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No; other than Mr. Haldeman indicated to me it 
would be — that the objective of Mr. Semer meeting with various people 
within the White House would be met. 

Mr. Sanders. But not that their ultimate objectives would be. 



7812 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Sanders. Did any White House official give you an understand- 
ing that their ultimate objectives would be met 'i 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, sir. 

Mr. Weitz. I take it all of these questions apply to 1969, or prior 
to the receipt of the contribution ? 

Mr. Sanders. Yes. Did you have any written communications with. 
anyone in the White House concerning the anticipated receipt of this 
contribution ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't believe I did, Mr. Sanders; I have no rec- 
ollection of any such written memorandums or letters. 

However, mj^ diaries, I tliink, clearly reflect the number of people, 
the number of times I raised the matter of Mr. Semer, and the prospec- 
tive contribution by his clients, which was, in fact, received in earlv 
August of 1969. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you in any way represent to Semer at any time 
that his ultimate objectives would be met ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I did not. I have no recollection of ever doing so. 
I think that I probably indicated to him that I miderstood tlie objec- 
tive ; but the only thing that I represented firmly to Mr. Semer, as I 
remember, was that, yes, he would be able to meet with one or more of 
the people in the administration. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you gain any understanding from anyone in the 
White House that if this contribution did not materialize, that the 
dairy producers would not hn ve an opportunity to have any audience 
in the White House ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I did not. 

Mr. Sanders. Now, with respect to the events of March 23, 1971, in 
your conversation with Mr. Ehrlichman of the 23d, or at 5 :30 p.m. 
on the 24th, you have a recollection that he told you the price increase 
was to be announced on March 25 ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I do not, Mr. Sanders. 

Mr. Sanders. You think it was not until 11 o'clock, the 11 o'clock 
meeting with Nelson and Chotiner that you learned of that price 
increase ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. But, you did tell us then, something may have been 
said to you by Mr. Ehrlichman about reaffirmation to be made to you 
at the 11 o'clock meeting. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct, and it would be my understanding 
and my very best recollection, that at the 5 :30 meeting with Mr. 
Ehrlichman, he advised me that I would be meeting with INIr. Chotiner 
and Mr, Nelson later that evening, at which time a reaffirmation of the 
pledge would be received. 

Mr. Sanders. So that to the best of your recollection. Mr. Ehrlich- 
man did not place the reaffirmation in the context of the anticipated 
price increase. 

Mr. Kalmbach, I do not haA-e that recollection; no, sir. 

Mr. Sanders. Did you gain any understanding from Mr. Ehrlich- 
man, either on the 23d or the 24th, as to why a reaffirmation was being 
called for at this point in time ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Excuse me, INIr. Sanders, would you repeat that 
question? 



7813 

Mr. Sanders, Did you gain any understanding from Mr. Ehrlicli- 
man on the 23d or 24th as to wliy, then, a reaffirmation was to be made, 
or was being sought at tliis point in time ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Not from Mr. Ehrlichman, at least I do not so 
recall. 

Mr. Sanders. Is it your recollection that in mentioning to you the 
anticipated reaffinnation, that Mr. Ehrlichman put it in terms of a 
pledge to be made b}^ representatives of the dairj^ producers ? And the 
emphasis is on the word "pledge." 

]Mr. Kalmbach. I think my memory is that it was in the sense of a 
reaffirmation of a pledge, of a prior pledge. 

]Mr. Sanders. Was it the intention that moneys perhaps already 
paid would be included within that, or there was that much money still 
due? 

Mr. Kalmbach. It would be my recollection that it was a reaffirma- 
tion of an earlier pledge of $2 million, of a $2 million contribution to 
the President's 1972 campaign ; and it would be my undei'standing that 
it was simply a reaffirmation of the pledge and any funds that had 
been theretofore received by the campaign would be credited against 
that pledge. 

Mr. Sanders. Now, what I don't understand is whether Mr. Ehrlich- 
man on the 23d and 24th is telling you, that what is to occur at your 
evening meeting with Mr. Chotiner and Mr. Nelson is that you are 
to seek this reaffirmation ; or Avhether he already knows that it has been 
intended, and is merely to be announced to you. 

Mr. Kalmbach. INIr. Sanders, my recollection is that it was my clear 
impression that I Avas not to seek a reaffirmation, but that I would be 
supplied such a reaffirmation. 

INIr. Sanders. Then, it appeared to you that he already knew that 
was to be accomplished. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes, sir; that would be my recollection. 
ISIr. Sanders. We have been told. I believe, by witnesses other than 
you, that when Nelson and Chotinei- met on the night of the 24th they 
weren't able to get in contact with you right away; and when they 
finally did they found that you had perhaps already retired for the 
night. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I don't haye a clear memory on that. My memory is 
that I did meet them in my room at the Madison Hotel. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you remember whether you had already gone to 
bed before they came ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I'm not certain of that, Mr. Sanders, but I do have 
a clear recollection of meeting them. Whether or not I had retired or 
not, I just don't have a clear recollection. 

Mr. Sanders. Well, before 11 o'clock, did you have an understanding 
where the meeting was to be ? 
Mr. IvALivniACH. Yes, I did. 
Mr. SANDi.:jis. Where ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. In my room at the IMadison. 

Mr. Sanders. In your conversation with Nelson and Chotiner, and 

in connection with some mention by them, as you told us, of the price 

increase to be announced the next day, did it appear to you that that 

announcement was already a foregone conclusion, that.it was to occur? 

Mr. Kalmbach. Yes. 



7814 

Mr. Sanders. Did it appear to you that it was in any way reversible ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. It did not. 

Mr. Sanders. Did it appear to you that if the reaffirmation was not 
made, that the price annoiuicement would not be made ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. It did not. It appeai*ed to me. Mr. Sanders, that the 
decision had been made as to tlie announcement the following- clay of 
the price increase; and that the purpose of my meetino- with Mr. 
Chotiner and jVIr. Nelson was to receive a reaffirmation of the earlier 
pledge. And that I would be the one for them to see, inasmuch as I was 
the principal fundraiser for the 1972 campaiorn at that point in time. 

Mr. Sanders. Do you have any concept of what might have occurred 
if the reaffirmation had not materialized that night ? 

ISIr. Kalmbach. No. sir; I do not, although it is my impression that 
I felt that I was simply to be advised of the reaffirmation. 

Mr. Sanders. Now, you have told us during previous testimony that 
the announcement — I believe the terminology was "linked'' to the 
reaffirmation. 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is correct, I so understood that it would be. 

Mr. Sanders. What do you mean by "linked-', if the aimouncement 
was already a foregone conclusion and was not reversible, did you mean 
to say that the reaffirmation was conditioned upon the amiouncement of 
the increase? 

Mr. Kalmbach. No, Mr. Sanders, my understanding was, as I think 
I testified, was that when I met with Mr. Nelson and ]Mr. Chotiner, 
that they indicated that the milk-support decision would be — ^they 
understood that the milk-support decision would be announced the 
following day, and in view of that fact they were in fact reaffirming 
the pledge by the milk producere to the President's 1972 campaign. 
That is what I meant by the fact that the two matters were in fact 
linked. 

Mr. Sanders. So that you had no understanding with Haldeman, 
Ehrlichman, Nelson, Chotiner, or anyone that the reaffirmation of this 
so-called pledge was being made in any way as a condition of the an- 
nouncement of the price increase ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. I did not so understand. 

Mr. Sanders. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Weitz. iMr. Kalmbacli, you testified that you received reaffirma- 
tion but did not seek it out that night. 

IMr. Kalmbach. That is correct. 

Mr. Weitz. It was your understanding that the pledge had, in fact, 
been reaffirmed prior to that evening, your evening meeting; is that 
correct ? 

ISIr. Kalmbach. It was my impression that it had been. 

Mr. Weitz. So, whether or not there was a link between the price 
support and the reaffirmation of the pledge, it Avould not liaA^e been 
necessarily evident by the fact that the price-support decision was no 
longer conditional at 11 o'clock that evening. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Excuse me, Mr. Weitz, could you restate that ques- 
tion? 

Mr. Weitz. Your understanding was that the price-support decision 
was to be announced the next day, regardless of what occurred late 
that evening in your room ? 

Mr. Kalmbach. That is right. 



7815 

Mr. DoRSEN. Mr. Kalmbach, it was your understanding that the 
price decision was going to be announced on the 25th, and I gather it 
must be understood, in the light of your understanding, that the pledge 
had already been reaffirmed prior to the 11 p.m. meeting, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Kalsibach. I think, Mr. Dorsen, that my understanding was 
simply, as I stated, that the price support would be announced the 
next day ; and that in view of that fact, that the pledge to the Presi- 
dent's 1972 campaign was being reaffirmed to me as a principal fund- 
raiser. 

Mr. Dorset. But it was also your understanding that the pledge 
had already been reaffirmed at an earlier time, prior to the 11 p.m. 
meeting. 

Mr. Kalmbach. Well, it was my impression that they were simply 
advising me of something that they probably had indicated to someone 
else earlier. 

Mr. DoRSEN. So, that essentially you were going to be a witness 
to the reaffirmation in your capacity as the major fundraiser. 

Mr. Ivalmbacii. I so understood, Mr. Dorsen, that they wanted — 
it was my impression that the reason I was being advised of this is 
that they wanted the milk producers to tell me that such a pledge was 
in fact being reaffirmed, yes. 

Mr. DoRSEN. I have no further questions. 

Mr. ICalmbach. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 9 :55 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter 
was adjourned.] 



7816 

Kalmbach Exhibit No. 3 

Personal and confidential April 11, 1969. 

Hon. Maurice H. Stans, 
Watergate East Apartments, 
Washington, B.C. 

Dear Maurie : In talking with Jack Mulcahy this morning, he told me that 
he would be making a contribution of $25,000 to the Victory Dinner and has 
committed himself to contributing $100,000 to the 1970 campaign. 

After my talk with Jack, I 'talked to Jerry Milbank and advised him of the 
$25,000 and $100,000 amounts and of Jacli's comments. Jerry is going to talk to 
him and try to get some idea as to the timing of these contributions. 

I received your wire and will hand deliver a letter to you relative to our 
finances when I'm back in Washington on May 7th for the Dinner. Jerry asked 
that I see if you could possibly see the two of us sometime early Wednesday 
morning. May 7th. He Avould like to tallc to you about several things and I feel 
that all points could be covered easily within fifteen to thirty minutes. 
Best regards, 

Herbert W. Kalmbach. 
HWK: mrc 



Kalmbach Exhibit No. 4 

itinerary/ AGENDA 

Wednesday, March 2Jt, 1911 
Depart LAX via UAL 52, 8 :30 a.m., arrive Dulles, 4 :15 p.m. 
iStay at the Madison Hotel, 15th and M Sts., N.W., 202/483-6400. 

P/U by WH auto 
i5 :30 p.m. — Meeting w/John Ehrlichman in his oflSce. 
6 :30 p.m. — Meeting w/Dan Hofgren at Washington Hilton. 
8:00 p.m. — Dinner (RFC; meeting first at Suite No. P/1 — Gus Levy's name). 
ill :00 p.m. — After-dinner meeting (to be scheduled) . 

Thursday, March 25, 1911 
8 :30 a.m. — Meeting in coffee shop of Madison w/Tom Evans. 
9 :00 a.m.^ — -B'fast. meeting at the Madison with John Rollins. 

11 :(X) a.m. — Meeting with Gordon Strachan and Bob Haldeman in Haldeman's 
oflBce at the WH. 

1 :00 p.m. — Luncheon meeting in Ehrlichman's oflSce with Ehrlichman, Milbank 
and George Murphy. 

3:30 p.m. — Meeting with P/M General Blunt in the Post Master General's 
Oflice. - 

4:00 p.m.— Meeting in Rm. 6802 of the Department of Commerce with M. Stans 
and other business people. 

6 :00 p.m. — At the Madison (changing for dinner) . 

7 :30 p.m.— Dinner at the WH. 

11 :00 p.m. — Back to the Madison. 

Friday, March 26, 1911 

8 :30 a.m. — Breakfast meeting at the Watergate with M. Stans. 
10 :00 a.m. — At the WH — probably meeting with Mr. Finch. 

12 :00 to 3 :00 p.m. — A/F No. 1 leaves Andrews AFB with one stoiJ — arrives at 
El Toro. Mrs. Kalmbach to p/u. 

Saturday, March 21, 1911 

10 :00 a.m.— Golf at LACC w/Mark A. Soden and Don Martin. 

HWK/ah 

3/24/71 



7817 
AFFIDAVITS 

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH BAROODY 
I, JOSEPH BAROODY, being duly sworn, hereby depose 



and say: 



Since 1970 I have been employed in the public affairs 
consulting firm of Wagner and Baroody, 1100 Seventeenth Street, 
N.W. , Suite 712, Washington, D.C. The consulting services which 
my firm renders consist of representing clients affected by 
Federal Government actions. 

From October, 197E, to January 1972, my firm was retained 
for consulting services by the Associated Milk Producers, Incorpo- 
rated for a fee of $2,500 per month. This consulting relationship 
was initiated with the assistance of the law firm of Reeves and 
Harrison of Washington, D.C, of which Marion Harrison, Esq. is 
a partner. I have met Mr. Marion Harrison on two or three occa- 
sions. Mr. Charles Colson, former special assistant to the 
President of the United States, was aware that my firm represented 
AMPI. It was my understanding that my firm was expected to look 
for ways in which we could advance the interests of AMPI. At no 
time, however, was I - or was any other person in my firm - con- 
nected in any way with, or aware of, any discussions between 
representatives of AMPI and the Administration concerning either 
milk price supports or possible contributions to the 1972 Presi- 
dential Campaign Fund. 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 - 19 



7818 



-2- 

I have bii-r. psrsor.ally aiJualnti-J v;ivi; Mr. Charlej 
Colsori for- several yeai'3. Ir; zhe li:zz-ir part o:^ A-;-:u.;t; ■ji- z'::i 
i'lrjc pai-": of September, 1971, M-". Oolson teli-phor.ed ne aril 
told lae ciia:; zh'i '.■IVA:--; House hai ar. ur^t-n" r.^t■^i I'jr jii.j/j aaJ 
hs B.':)V.-j'l n:e to lend hlrn this amount for a 3hjrc p-;-r.'.oi of zl'.:.=i. 
He did not tel, l r;i^ v/hy the money was needed. I *;-,';n^red this 
sum. together fron .rr.y personal funds ($1,500 t5 .?2,OJ0) ani fro.T. 
funds ($3,000 to $j,500) which had previously oeer: ^Ivin co rr.; 
by Mr. C'ol3o.'';'3 office to use in preparing televLslo.n responses 
to a C'o.T.'.von Cause ttate.r.ent on ending the war in Southeast .43la. 
The next day I put 15,000 in an unmarked envelope arid tooic it to 
Mr. Colson's office in the Executive Office BuLidlng, Mr. Colsjn 
told i:.e to take the money to an office and give ic co a person 
v;ho:!i I v;ould find t.here. I v;ent co the office I had \ji:ci\ told to 
go :;o and gave uiie Lioney to a laan wh...:.! I did h-jX, •-.n-jW but v;!.o.ii 
I n^w l.vii^,-; to iia-/^ o;^en S^;!! ILi'„5h, Ji^. 

Tv;o or three v;eeks afterv;ard3, I received another tele- 
phone call frora Mr. Colson's office. I v;as told that I could be 
repaid by jioi.ng to Mr. George Webster, Esq., an attorney whose 
office v;as on Jefferson Place, N.W., in VJashlngton, D.C. At the 
time I was v/holly unaware that Mr. V/ebster v/as en^a^ed in fund 
raising activities in connection with the President's re-election 
effort. Soon after receiving the call, I went to Mr. Webster's 



7819 



-3- 
office. He was not In. I identified myself to a receptionist 
who went to a nearby desk, opened a drawer and pulled out an 
unmarked envelope which she handed to me. The envelope con- 
tained $5,000 in cash. 

In June of 1973, Mr. Colson called me on the telephone 
and told me that it appeared that the $5,000 might have been used 
to finance the September 1971 break-in ©f the offices of Dr. Lewis 
Fielding, the psychiatrist of Dr. Daniel Ellsberg. The purpose 
of Mr. Colson' s call was to establish the date of the loan so as 
to determine whether, in fact, the funds could have been used for 
that purpose. 

In the Spring of 1972 I received $22,000 from Mr. Colson's 
office to place advertisements in several major newspapers through- 
out the United States supporting President Nixon's military 
actions in Southeast Asia. Subsequently, the advertising pro- 
ject was suspended and this m.oney was returned by me to Mr. 
Colson's office. Thereafter, it was decided that the advertise- 
ments would be placed on a smaller scale and I was given approxi- 
mately $6,800 with which to defray the costs of the reduced 
program. 

The instances referred to previously herein are the only 
ones in which I have received White House funds. 

From August of 1971 to the Spring of 1972, I worked with 



7820 



-4- 

a oommitt'^e called "Citizens for a New Prosperity". Its function 
was to place advertislments and hold press oonCevences to. build 
support for the occnoniic policies er.'ibodied in the Economic Jtabi- 
lizati^n A^t and Phases I and II. The Cormnittee was blpai'tlsan; 
its tv/o principal officers were Hobart Lev/is and former Treasury 
Secretary ?ov;ler. 



DATE: /A^^. ^r /fPy SIGNATURE il^^ / ,-is^.^r.^^ 

^ ^ Tv'j^seph baroodifJ^ 



Subscribed and sworn to before me this JlS day of ^jf-U-^K^^ , 197^. 

DATE : ApIA. /^. / -7 ^^^ AC_ 

Notary Public 



I Notarv Public 



7821 

UNITED STATES SENATE 
SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 
AFFIDAVIT 

I Joe Bell of 500 N. W. 30th Street, Fort Worth, Texas 
depose and say as follows. 

Since //flft^<:-H J 97c , I have been employed as a 

pilot for the Tandy Corporation. From / /Ii/a/^$ /" ■/'^ 7/j 
until ^/ T/^fi/ , /Ty^ I was employed by Associated Milk Producers 
(AMPI) to pilot their aircraft which included a Sabre Liner 
Model 60 (license number N961R). 

In the normal course of business myself and other 
AMPI pilots maintained daily aircraft flight reports. 
I have examined and initialed the attached copies of the 
daily aircraft flight report (Attachment A) for the Sabre Liner, 
furnished to me by the U. S. Senate Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities. Also, I have initialed 
and attached true copies of ray perdonal flight log (Attachment 
B) for the corresponding dates. 

To the best of my knowledge, the attached AI^IPI daily 
aircraft flight reports are tixie and accurate records of the 
points of origination and destination for the flights undertaken 
in the Sabre Liner for those dates. However, they may not 
reflect all intermediate stops on such flights. To the 
extend that my personal flight logs reflect intermediate 
stops for such flights, my logs are true and accurate records 
of such stops. 



7822 



For example, on March 12, 1971- the AMPI daily flight 
report (included in Attachment A) shows that the company 
Sabre Liner which I piloted on that day flew from San Antonio 
to Washington to San Antonio. My personal flightlog for 
that particular date (included in Attachment B) indicates 
that I piloted the plane from San Antonio to Austin to 
Washington to Little Rock to Austin to San Antonio. Thus, 
on March 12 the company Sabre Liner flew from San Antonio 
to Washington with an intermediate stop in Austin and 
returned from Washington to San Antonio with intermediate 
stops in Little Rock and Austin. 

, There are a couple of minor exceptions noted and Initialled by 
me In the attachments. 

Joe Bell 




Kv Cc:- 






7823 



ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS, INC. 
DAILY AIRCHAFT FUGHT REPORT 



MAKE OF AIRPLANE ''^>/? O A ^ MODEL 6-(C> LICENSE NO. N / 1 ■ I "^ DATE ^ ~ S "* ]?"/ 



^f'lTgmTj 


OEpIVtURE 


v"~W 


^ 


y=f 


=^ 


=1 




t'aCH time 




,aJ"'c. 


' OIL TOO OK 


FLOwli 


pass!' 


NO. 


ARRIVAL 


OerARTURC a:)PIVAL 


OUT 


-.5. Tt«. 


I. EN«. R. CNC. 


MtLE! 


1. 


Pc/9 


i^iT 








--?.->•. i 


>v;y 


X 


^ 








7i'i 


3f ' 


2. 


/-;r 


yiTT 






ri7-^ 




1 










•It 7 


V '' 


3. 




























4. 




























S. 




























6. 














> 














LIST PASSENGERS AND "X" FLIGHTS MADE 


DAILY TOTALS 












,11] 


'h'- 


'-.^-JaT"' " 




2 


3 






TIME - HOURS AND TENTHS OF HOURS 








S 


fi 






2 
5 


3 

6 




AIRCRAFT 


.EFTEHS. 


R.CWTE.C 


OIL^^'of 


II.5..CT,: 






2 

S 


3 




TIME BnoUOHT 
FORWARD 


■?->'.— 


•? ^'. ) 


-p-5-,Z 






■ ■■ ■ 




2^ 


_3 




TODAY'S TIME 




^' c 












2 


3 




TOTAL TIME 


■ -r 


■'. ■( ' 


' ■ ' 








5 


6 


. 


IMSTRUMEMT: NIGHT: 


DHNI CHECK: HO. I . MO. 2 



!M ' :w, /|/t .^' /(/" 

/'I .'-^ 






M 



MAKE OF AIRPLANE 



ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS, INC. 
DAILY AIRCRAFT FLIGHT IJEPORT 
^..-•'' ' i~ ( MODEL i' C' LICENSE NO. N /(-'/-. 



DATE \ 



"':"' 


der'aVtSre 


~ po7nt or 


TIM 


^""arrival" 


■ TACM 


rif— 


"rJiic;. 


,J*,%7 


u°cViv.%°:.. 


r^otl' 


mI"', 


1. 


-^/''l' 


/;<>7- 






yWf.O 


5>7.i 


■! 


/5^ 












2. 


V':n 


.-: /y r 






i>/..'7 


:^><.<i 


-> 


? 












3. 




























4. 




























5. 




























LIST 






























PASSENGERS AND 


"X" FLIGHTS MADE DAILY TOTALS 


/ 


^-7 












l" 


2 


Y 




J- 


2 


_3 






TIME - HOURS AND TENTHS OF HOURS 


4 


S 




1 


2 






:!- 


2 
S 


3 
<> 




AlPC-AFT 


UEFTEHO. 


-ICHTE^C. 


.,i«".. 


Sl«t 


4 


S 




'■*"- 


1 


_2^ 

s" 


f 






2 


3 




TIKE BROUGHT 
FORWARD 


?w 


s'^S'6 


1--^^ r 






4 




S 


f, 




1 
4 


2^ 






i 


2 
•i 


3 




TODAY'S TIME 


/. f 


V '/ 


V..-f 






1 


2 








1 


2 


3 










-> 






-* 


A 




4. 


^. 


!_§ 


L._ 






T 


OTAL TIU 


E 


^' 


^4 


1 


_i 


, '^,'j v 




jjj 


L^ 


-^ 





NSTRUMCNT: 



OMNI CHECK: NO. I 



it^fC 



(. •' '■ 



•.' A /; ^ 



7824 



*„.... ^He../^k^:..tV 



r^i.sr 



ASSOCIATED KIIK PRODUCERS, INC 

DAILY AinCnAFT FUGHT RnPOnT 

Moot 



t^ 



y-_Zy-.'l-- LICKHSg NO. H //- / /'. OATE /- •' '■ .' . 



jjjl 5_^4— 






^yfj 



fj£c.z- 



•iT P»ltENCERS ANO "X" FLIGHTS MADE 



M 




I -J 


•' 




^1 


I's- 


' ^ 2 


.*- 


.^v* 




Hoqo: _ 



DAILY TOTALS , / 

TIME - HOURS ANO TENTHS OF HOUDS 



TODAY'S TIME 



TOTAL TIME 



Qlb 



■::"^- 1 



n.( 



vfcL 



^j^LL 



f./ 



•TV. -?- 



^. ; 



t/;.<i. 



IMSTRUMENT: 



OUNI CHECK: NO. I 






(?i>c:r-'/UJ-^ 1 ) 



hJ-/^ 



MAKE OF AIRPLANE 



-/r 



ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCtkS, INC. 
DAILY AIRCRAFT FUGHT REPORT 
MODEL /- ( LICENSE NO. K 



l^ 

































""-LV.^ 


oeSlVTSnE 


»' 


^i^-lL 


^^? 


.-r„vo~^'" 




T-ȣt'.Ii!:'i._ 


''^^ 


7ce 


_l'l'J!-l"_ 


ivi'iii 


-os; 


^i^*" 


,°_'' 


1. 




/.,. 






r>-'r- ■ 


/ •/ • 


^ ' 


-. 




2. 




























3. 






















- 






4. 




























5. 




























6. 




























LIST PASSENGERS ANO "X" FLIGHTS MADE 




DAILY TOTALS 
















< S 6 




i- 


J. 

s 


3_ 






TIME - HOURS ANO TENTHS OF HO'J 


<S 




V 


2. 

Is 


6 




.„cr,.rT 


.C.T.MC. 


R.CHTCN.. 


oit""'« 


,»j.i: 








2 


i 




TIMC BROUGHT 
FORttA,RO 


1. ' : 


( '■ '■ . 


/ ' '■ ' 






■-fM* 




S 


6 




i^^f 






"s 


_3 

6 




TOOAT-S TIME 




. ' ' 








ilMl 








2 

S 


i 










3rAL TIM 


E 


i 




J 


/ 


--I 


:i'._ 






.. 





INSTRUMFNT: 



OMNI CHCCK: NO. I 



<i:ia 



7825 



A5S0tIAT!D MILIC KRODUr r.';S, INC. 

DAILY AtnCRA^T rLIGllT rJCIORT 

oor;i. ' . LICENSE no. H / /• ^ date •^- ■ / ^ ,- 






LT.^ 



^/.iA^_ 









Ll-T PAtS^CHrruS AMD "X" FLIGHTS HADE 



DAILY TOTALS 






mr 






.k:^»iI 



TODAY'S TIME 
TOTAL TIME 






TIME - nouns AHD TENTHS OF HOURS 



-.■■/. 






/■•■/// 



IHSTRUMEHT: 



OMNI CHECK: HO. 1 



/- /C. 



/',',■( 1 ) ' 



"' " ^ /olxhi 



' yX. OF Air<PLANE 



ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS, INC. 

DAILY AIRCItAFT FUGKT REPORT 
MODEL t • f LICENSE NO. N V_; 






,a/ 



,D "X" FLIGHTS MACE 



DAILY TOTALS 



TODAY'S TIME 



TIME - HOURS AND TENTHS OF MOUKS 



TOTAL TIME 

OMIII CHECK: HO, 



>\ S 



■I ■■./ 




7826 



•AKi: or /.iJir'i 



: '■ I S// 



4 I License MO. W V'«'" / ' . -r ''^/^/}' / 



t\V,ov,t.\;.o M!iK PRO.Tjcirs, inc. 
■' .1 .' /' moocl 



_f I ! 



'■ ! /./r" 



.// 






. U! J, 







•' / ■■ ■ 

or.--.., 




•> 


_, — 




1 


T 



I ill IJ 
4 \i\ !l 

If!l I 

M: 






TlMS - Hoijo; 

— — -l 



Ii/^a:;uZ.(.._„_1 



. irr^gMENf; 



-^/A- 

./'-" 



7827 



^, 



Date 


AIRCRAFT 


Flight 
No. 


FroYi) 


To 


Dura- 
tion 
of Trip 


Pilot In 
Com- 
mand 


Co-Pllot 


Pilot 
Time 


Day 




ld«nt. 
No. 


Category 


Type 


CUss 
















^A 


N-^i/F 


5TD 


s^.f*ij./fta 






or- 


^/z- 


/..< 


/.T 




./, <• 


i /. i' 


J/. 


rj9L-/f. 










A^r 


^c/51 


/• 5- 


/.5- 




J if 


/< 




^A 


M'ft/e^ 


,, 


• i 






I>C4 


/VAiC 


2.9 


2.^ 




Z.^l 


z.c 


/0-9 


V' 


MTf/lL 


II 


" 






A/c:c 


/)f^ 


/. 7 


/.7 




/ 7 




A 7 


fr. 


Mfi'iL. 


'■ 




,. 




nr/f- 


.f-s-r 


4- A 


4 ^ 




^ i 


£^G-J:3^ 


V> 


,\i?6^e. 


" 


" 


.' 




f^r 


4>c-/?- 


^■0 


?<? 




■10 


■^c 


">/-,' 


/vT^/e 


-, 


/, 


w 




CCA 


/-T 


2-7 


7-7 




7.7 


2sZ-^__ 


y< 


Nfoe. 


„ 


.< 


-< 




i./r 


^^7- 


/.■b 


/5~ 




/ 5' 


J.-,' 


% 


M^6/C 




.> 


„ 




s-^^ 


PuB 


/■ <,- 


Ar 




/,<r 


J.i- 




V, 


\'f(./i!L 


,, 


•< 






/•ug 


/3c/ 


/■6 


/. <; 




A !- 


/ (n 




'/o 


A/fl/(_ 


.. 


.. 


.< 




/5>r/ 


fz)K 


/■ 7 


/, 7 




/■7 


>,^ 




y^ 


AjT(/C. 


-• 




It 




fi/l-K 


pJ g- 


2.S' 


^.i.~ 




ztT 






y^^ 


Nfi/^ 


.y 




n 




Pu& 


i^-r- 


/■ "T 


^. "T 




f'T 


/.i~ 




V,r, 


N9i/£. 


/' 


'1 


'■ 




^rfr 


0//Q 


■2.^. 


,7.^- 




2'-<i 


■2.?. 




'h. 


Nfu£- 


,, 


,, 


<< 




C'tYC 


t)^i-z- 


2. -a 


/.i 




2-3 


Z3 


>.. 


N'^n^c 






" 




/)^^Z_ 


^ /hT 


/ c 


/.C, 




/.o 




I'O 


y<i<^ w1^ ^°''' ^ 


me to Date 














/2^^^ 


Carry Totali Forward 






V^ 


/ 










.1.4 













INSTRUMENT 


Dual Instruction 


Croii 

Country 


Solo 


REMARKS 


Actual 


Hood 


Link 


Checl 


6l>en 


Rec'd 


(Instructor Certification. Maneuvers, Damage to Aircraft, etc.) 




















Pi-f 












y-T- 






O.J 












/ 5~ 






/'/ 












2.9 






c,7 












/■ ^ 






(■^ 












4:S 






/'/ 












?.<<7 






C.4. 












■z. r 






f,-='^ 












/■ S" 






£>,y 












/. s— 






/•o 












/. c 






J-O 












/. 7 






f.c 












Zi'~ 


















/■s~ 






0.^ 












2.-L. 






c.-> 












^- 5 




■ 


C. 












/■o 






















The Record on this Page Is Certified Correct 
Pilots Signature 


to Top of Next Page | 



7828 




INSTRUMENT 


Dual l.litru.tt.).! 


Cr>il 

Country 


Solo 


R£M ^«KS 


ActudI 


Hood 


Link 


Cnsck 


Given 


Rec'd 






















^.-C 












r.jT 






0. ? 












2.7 






«-^ 1 
















I.& 1 










'-/./ 






o./ 


1 








^.<i 






/./ 


i 








3' 






^3 












..^ 


















/. Z- 






£. Z 












/-2, 






S.6 












^-^ 






i. 7 












L^fi 






C. Z 












^/- C7 
















^.8 
















/■o 
















'^' o 














/■S 






J~e^^y <?tff^. ,a^T TV^^if .£^£ye/^ 




: 








i The Record on thii Pj,. is Certified Correct 



Tip of NmI Pige 



Pilofs Si^njlu 



7829 



Oa<e 

19//.. 


AIRCRAFT 


Flight 
• No. 


From 


To 


Dura- 
tion 
of Trip 


Pilot in 
Com. 
mand 


Co-Pilol 


Pilot 
Time 


Day 




Ident. 
No. 


Category 


Type 


Cla» 


















^A^ 


/vvr/-' 


J-hT 


r.rf-:rur-rc 


-TfT 




^///^ 


ACC 


/■/- 


/ r 




A^ 


/^ 




-y,--^ 


/v/y/zJ 




'T'''.37'*1 






fwr 


crG 


2-5- 


7..-,' 




?,•>' 


2 >- 




-Vr.- 


^y7//? 


/. 




„ 




<^r^ 


.5A/- 


■2.^ 


■2.y 




^.5' 


Z.< 




y^T 


AVi;//^ 


.. 


;^^VZ 


„ 




f^r 


i)cA 


2.i 


2.'^ 




^.9 




2,9 


''"t 


/vfy^-c 


/• 




<■ 




OC/^ 


5^r 


3.0 


S-o 




?p 


?.o 




'/'i. 


w'Ti,'^ 


.. 


./ 


" 




^^aT 


D/H- 


c.g 


b-% . 




t>.% 


<?.? 




Vu. 


A/f^^/d 


'1 




r 




r^/U- 


s^r 


^.e 


D.% 




i>.t 




M 


'Ar 


^^'S'f /,£. 


., 


/. 


-. 




^Ar 


Ai^i 


<s:,i' 


o.i' 




^■r 


<E.S- 




Vr^ 


Kj9ti/L 


„ 


>. 


»l 




/>Ui 


%^r 


£.4 


C.f- 




C.4 


a^ 




-v? 


N?i-/e. 


„ 


• . 


<c 




T^r 


/■^/>iM 


?c> 


Zo 




ZD 


Z.e 




-y^ 


/^'7f/£. 


,. 


>. 


„ 




MAuJ 


s^r- 


?,(- 


2.^ 




,?.<< 






-%- 


NfL-lt 


// 


., 


1. 




<;/)-r 


PifZ^ 


^.% 


c.t 




e.f 


<f.5? 




^A- 


N911C 




.. 


'. 




Dfic- 


sAr- 


c.i, 


o.'h 




c.i 


r.fc 




^/^ 


H/<?lt //l^ 


., 


„ 


.. 




s^r 


a/h^ 


o.fi 


o.f? 




P.& 


^•f 




r^ 


N^f/P^ 


,, 


,. 


,. 




0^9-^ 


DCA 


2.S- 


Z.^' 




2.T 


?..:? 




^/i 


h/9i i/Z- 


.. 


.• 


,. 




OC/i 


D/^t^ 


F-f- 


^.9. 




/.8 


!-0 


/>.f 


y<?2^ ^' ^°'°' ^ 


me to Date 














//^^ 


Carry Totals Forwdrd 


















21.1 


•^^ 







INSTRUMENT 


Dual Instruefion 


Cross 

Country 


Solo 


REMARKS 
(Initructor Certification. Maneuvers. Damage to Aire 


aft. etc.l 


Actual 


Hood 


Link 


Ch.cl. 
Reed 


Given 


Rec'd 






























f ? 






j«///>^ c'ctr^yiA'j ryps icv/?/e 


fi-^ 










2.') 








P-^ 










^■iT 








fi.£ 










2.9 








(.3 










S-o 


















o.l 


















c. & 


















^■s- 


















^.^ 








tp.^ 










2.£> 








e>.? 










^^£ 


















c.% 


















c.e 








e,?- 










<?.ft 








€>.S-- 










2.fr 








£>.s- 










^.f, 
























The Record on this Page is Certified Correct 



























^ 



)i-l 



7830 



a 





AIRCRAFT 


Flight 

No. 


Front 


To 


Oyr.- 

tion 

of Trip 


Pilof in 
Com. 
mand 


Co-Pilo 


Pilot 

Time 


Day 




SI 7 J 


Id.ot. 
No. 


Category 


Type 


Clos 


Night 
















'/.<? 


/Vf///^ 


jre.r 


inUSlc 


/H/:i 




^. IT 


S/^r 


/••4 


/ a 








/. <J 


'y;o 


A/<."Lff. 


>( 


1, 


M 




r-fr 


sot= 


/. 3 


1 ? 




/ J 


1. 3 




^.^ 


i^Vf-id 


., 


'• 


•< 




SCr/^ 


/Ufi^D 


1.2. 


/, t 




/,i 






-?''<a_ 


U-i^f /A 


* 


• ( 


<. 




/V/f 


sA^r 


2>' 


z.S~ 




2-5" 


7-Jtl 




V^ 


sriuit 


„ 


.. 


.. 




s^r- 


PTv^ 


/,o 


l.o 




/ .o 


1 o 




'W., 


rVfV^C 


» 


'1 


S 




f^TZ-i 


Si^r 


o.g 


e.9i 




f.S 


c.% 




'A, 


/^fc/f- 


• • 


- 


./ 




s^-r 


A/r 


/.5~ 


/.<r 




1 ■< 


I.S' 




V^ir 




•• 




•• 




/-/r 


S''^T- 


/ i. 


ILe 




1 (. 


/.L 




/n 


2/^//£ 


'• 


•• 


• • 




s^r 


jviP 


.?. ? 


^.? 




7 ^ 


2.'5 




V^i 


/'9l/£. 


" 


'• 


•' 




r>ysp 


s^r 


^■7 






2. 7 


2.7 




72^ 


f^fc/e. 


" 


•' 


" 




s/^r 


t>cn 


}.l 


5•^ 




5. i 


?,l- 




■'/7^ 


A-?<.//t 


•• 


'• 


•1 




hc/f 


G-i>f/i>ee^ 


2.7 


Z.7 




■2. 7 


21 




•/^, 


N'/Lf^ 


/> 


1) 


• 1 




Cfi^ns^. 


/U^' /*V^ 


T-,-^ 


? ■? 




y ■4- 


^.4 




Vv 


'>'7ue_ 


" 


.• 


'< 




/^jSi*i«> 


pS^ifZ//'J- 


tf 


f ^ 




■f, f 


r s 




Yl_. 


A"f(/^ 


It 


'> 


II 




FeOf.'Lfver 


/,i'>n<J^,//>a 


f'O 


/ c 




).0 


IP 




b/^ 


/VH/^ 


" 


'1 


t< 




"OMfiJCl^ 


Pi'h&/s 


/.•>' 


j.r 




/5' 


/5" 




/T/. 


''k' y/^ Tot.l Tim. to D<«t 




















I. ^ 


^Y 








Carry Tolalt Forward 



''~~~' INSTRUMENT 


Dual Instruction 


Cross 

Country 


Solo 


REMARKS 
(Instructor Certification, Maneuvers. Damage to Aire 




Aclval 


Hood 


Link 


Ctieck 


Given 


Rec'd 




■ — 


















t 5 












/.<f. 


















/. 3 


















/'2_ 


















2.S~ 






D.I 












f-o 






C-!> 












£.S 






1.0 












i.s- 






(•f 












/.u 






C.7 












z •> 






d 








- 




z-r 






f o 












:?> 2- 






/./ 












2'7 






'•? 












J.*^ 


















:?> 


















/'O 






S>.3 












/.s- 






















Ttio Record on ♦his Page is Certified Correc 


1 


le Top of Next Page 












^ 


<J&i 


,,-<y 




^ 







-^ "} 



7831 



Date 

19.7/. 


AIRCRAFT 


Flight 
No. 


From 


To 


Dura- 
tion 
of Trip 


Pilot in 
Com. 
mand 


Co-Pllo 


Pilot 
Time 


Day 




Ident. 
No. 


Category 


Type 


Class 


NigM 
















•?/?£ 


/^■j-'fi- 


Sir 


i^^^LSLirtcA 


-Tfl- 




:i^r 


MS*/ 


,^ s- 


7 >- 




^•r 


d C 


<?.!!,— 


Wt 


.■J?i/t 




•1 






MS'^J 


/.' r 


/•i' 


Ar 




/ r 


/.iT 




"/< 


N9t/&. 






■• 




/>^r 


/i/jV 


/3 


/5' 




/.i' 


/ i" 




'% 


f-'9l/t 


• 1 


•I 


• 1 




/y^.v -^/. 


r* /^si^ 


■?.P 


? o 




j-.o 


!^',^ 


'%, 


AV/// 


•' 


•• 


" 




Afi.-/ -r A 


'r -f Mi^/ 


/•3 


/•i 




/■z 


/.,'^ 




'^, 


^/'/('f 


,/ 


'• 


" 




/W.'tM 


Sfir 


J-'T 


2r 




2.S' 




y'i" 


■y.^ 


/v?(/r. 






" 




T/f/--^ 


/^^/ 


r<?-i 


^/.d 




£>C> 


£>.£ 




'y^ 


/l/fiA" 


■( 




• ■ 




/V^i- ^ y/^dl. 


/■f 


/•^ 




/ /? 


f.^ 




'y^ 


fj-/i //. 


,. 


■■■ 


.' 




^^^ 


iW/- 


P-/-, 


^.<'. 




rc 


&-i 




'Vf 


K/9(/fl. 


n 


,' 


" 




?W/- 


A/~ 


/■<' 


/■s- 




/<r 


A^" 




Yf 


^?//^. 


'• 


/• 


/' 




A/r 


/*<$/■ 


/■i' 


/■s.~ 




// .■>" 


//; 


c.>~ 


'Y( 


r^?c/^ 


'• 


* 


" 




/■ys^ 


/./r- 


/•«' 


/■i' 




/.r 




/■>' 


•ye 


Vf^/C 


/• 


'• 






Z./7- 


s^/" 


/'S~ 


/ i~ 




/'S' 




/<- 


yo 


f^fce. 




" 


1, 




5>A 


£>C/) 


Z.i' 


;?;•,- 




ir.r 


z.s- 




'¥^ 


N9i/C 


" 


'• 


'1 




f&D 


s/?r 


2.1 


2 C 


■ 


2 c 


if-ri 


^c- 


"M 


/v-JV/'/C 


" 


" 


'• 




5fl-r 


/^fr 


A 5 


/■i 




/o' 


/.i' 




y 


^'^2^ ^/^^ Total Time !o Date 




















-^ 


"^/^ 


r 






Carry Totals Forward 



INSTRUMENT 


Dual Instruction 


Cross 

Country 


Sol. 


REMARKS 


Actual 


Hood 


Link 


Check 
Rec'd 


Given 


Rec'd 


































^..<r' 






/,i? 












/i~ 






CS' 












/J 






I.Z. 












SC 






o.f 












/'^- 






A/ 












^.> 






fi.fT 












<P'C 


















/'f 




>?/.//i/ ^^/^ /T^^" ^i? .^^^ ^. ^ . 


A5- 












<c.<r? 






/•>~ 












/o 






/-o 












/'-s 






^.3' 












/->~ 






<3.3~ 












/-S 






<S7,<t 












^•-3- 






/, -•5- 












^'-i? 






fi-ir 












y. .i- 






















The Record on (his Page is Certified Correct 


to Top of Ne«t Pnoe 























7832 



UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 

AFFIDAVIT 

I, Monroe Bethke, being duly sworn hereby dispose and say the following: 
I ana President of the Citizens National Bank in Austin, Texas where I have 
been employed since April 1, 1970. 

The attached copies which are initialed by me are true and exact copies of the 
Safe Deposit Box rental and entrance cards of boxes 998 and 835. The 
originals are being retained in our permanent safe deposit box files. 




The State of Texas 

BEFORE ME, Marthella Flowers, 
The County of Travis 

Notary Public, in and for Travis 

County, Texas, on this day personally appeared Monroe Bethke known to me 
to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and 
acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and 
consideration therein expressed. 
Given under my hand and seal of office, this 7th day of February, A. D. , 1974. 



Travis County, Texas 



7833 



Renter JACOBSEN, SJOflOC Jake _ V ^ . . Box No 93« 

Deputy ..®imXMncKXXX_Ix3uise__Crow Hent^, -p- (§i-«7?S> \ 

nApn»y'i f75^./-/t- ,v -^UJu ^rJSF^t^ deleted i>er Due in \ 

SIGNATURE AND RECEIPT OF RENTER 



In Oie v.uli. of CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF AUSTIN. Austin, Teias 
1 h«.e ihis d«y lented Sile D«poii< Box No. .nibj.i:! to th. rules «nd c, 



:ed in ihc Safe Deposit 



ndilions listed belo» and/'oi tho 

•ce« of ch.s iosiitution. 1 heteby consent and agiee to these rules and conditions. I have also received ?__keys to said boa. I lurthet agree lo 

pay lor the use of this boi annually in advance, the rental specified hereon, until I have returned the keys to said institution. In event of losinc the 
keys. 1 agree to pay the expanse of replacing the keys and any repairs necessitated by forceful opening of the Safe Deposit Door, 
S.\FETY DEPOSIT ItOX RENTAL RUI.E,S AND CONDITIONS 

1. It IS one of the condiii.ins of the renting of said box that said institution shall in no event be liable lor any loss Irom such box. through negli- 
gence, lor an amount in excess of ihtee hundre/times the agreed aniual rental. 

2. Thai said insiiluiion shall in no event be liable lor any loss of money, jevelry, or bearer securities placed in said box. 

3. nat evidence tending to prove that secoritres, money, valuables or other articles were leli in said box upon rhe last entry by the lessee ot 
customer or his authonted agent, and that the s^me wcte tound mfssing upon a subsequent entry, shall not be suffi(;i£nt to raise a presumption that the 
same were lost by any negligence or wrong doing for which said institution is responsible or pur upon said institution the burden of proof that such 
alleged loss was not the fault of said institution. 

4. Tlie lessee stipulates that he has examined the location of the box and accepts same and the location theteof as safe. 
">. It ia further sripulated that the rental reserve is for annual rent payable in advance annually. 

6. In the event the lessee shall not pay the rent promptly when due, such lease shall be regarded is tcrminai-d and saul ms 
contents of such box and shall be Iu6le lot no loss '' ' ' ' ' ' ■ 



ihisp 
7. In the ev 
rent reserve^ th 



; foi 
the le 



shall fail 



t thereof. 



shall be i 



en du 



ly upon l6 days elapsing without the said rent being paid, enter 
,-id box and take o .1 tke contents theteof, and sell ihe same at public 
auction at said institution, bv giving JO days' notice thereof by post- 
ing in the lobby of said institution and by mailing to the last adjr-ss 
of rhe lessee known ro the president of said institution, selling said 
contents of said box and alter the rental chaiges and any other claims 
oi charges the said insiilulion may Save against the lessee have been 
paid by letaining by said institution liom tke proceeds ol said sale if 
CaJ il^sulficienr ro repay the same, and ihe balance, if any, shall be 
paid to the lessee or any other person legally entitled therero. 



I have read the forecoing and 






hi^R^'ai 'RentVr' 
Addraa'a 



NO CHARGE - FORMER DIRECTOR 



DATE PAID 


AMOUNT 
PAID 


PAID TO 















































































































































































































































































=A 


^ 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 - 20 



7834 



APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY 

Tune 19. 



I hereby dn 



Mrs^ Eula Q. Bulkle y ^ 



hkh may her««flcr be rcnte<J by me, until Ihii authority is revolted by i 




7^ 



/^.^/'^ .-^ c^'c^Uc 



Signature o( Depu 






Signature of Deputy 



Sienature nf Kent* 



_Keys retiunetl 



_19 



I hereby certify tliut uU the ji;ii»l-is uiid utbt-r property 
placed within iny Deposit Itoi, in puisii;iiice of the contract 
above citeil have bet-ii duly nnd proi)C-rly withdrnwo thei 
from ami are in the owner's full possession, and snid Ba^i 
discharged from nil liability In respect thereto. 




7835 



DEPUTY 



3X NO.X_Z_ 



RENTAL $ . 



r^/^7j/^-^% 



^.AM^^JMc-^ 




/-p?7-7>^ 




■^a 



/cl-'ikglZ 



i^X-^.^<£^^. 



'&- 



ENTRANCE RECORD 




■y^.:. 



RENTER 



7836 



DEPUTY 



.,- ??/-^ 



RENTAL S . 




7837 



Deputy RonViL. 



D.'piity. 



-Dlu- 



SIGXATl'KE Ai\[> RECf;U'T OF RENTER 



_36_5_ 

-0- 



(o. .53) 



(;. A.. Va.ihs of cnrIZEt-;.'j national bank of AOSTIN, Austiu, Texsu 

1 0.1VS liiis .iu). imud Sals Diposi! Sol No. 865 sgbigel lo the tules anj condilions lisied -.Mon and, 

ir«a aF tills iniufjtion. I hereby con-i«nt and agtee to these tules and conditions. 1 have also teceived — 
piy lot the iise ol this bo« annually in .idv.tnce, the tcnlal specified heieon, until I hjve tcfitned the ki:ys t<j said institution 
k{yj, 1 ajtse to pay the expense of upKcing the keys and any lepaits necessitated by foiceful opening o.' th..- S>(e Deposit Oo. 
SAIGXy DEl'OSIT liOX RUNTAL RUt.nS AND COiVDITtONS 



:se p^::tt:d in ■> 
keys to Jiaid box. I t 



1. It is one of the conditions of the tenting of said box that .said n 

lence, foi an amount in cx.:css of thcee hiindied times ihe a«tecd annual 

I. That said institution siial! in no event be liable foi any lo:3 of iiK 

5. ITiat evidence tendinjj to ptove th.it seCJtities, money, yatuabi 



t be li! 



. thtouah nejii. 



lUeted loss was not the fault of s.iid in; 
4. The lessee stipulates that he has 
). I: is fufthet stipulated that the ten 



shall in nc 

!t atlicles 
jubsejuent entry, shall no; be so!lit;ier.,: to iiis! a piesu.tipiiyc that the 
15 (csponsible ot put upon said institution the butdeit ol pt.>ol that such 

nd the locati'in theteof a 



i.:ed in s.-.ld box. 

__ .__d box up in the 1 

ng up.jn a jubseijuent itntty, shall no; be suffit;' 



ally. 



""oi't' 
3t addtess 



';^l 



;4,rf bv f-',M,i"in<"b/ S.U.J in^Twun'.f! fn.n fh^ oficecds of said sale if 
fiJ, if juihcijoi w rs-p-ay ih.- s.im«. and (h< balunc«, if ar/. shall be 
pifi (9 tlie lessee or any othsc p«c:i4it l««jlly entitled thereto. 



r;/ 0, ./ 



'^IXl-^ 



208_ We s tgat3 Bid 2.. j.. Aun_t_u\_ 





MO CHAK.GE - 


Director 


DATS PAID 


A.MO'JMT . 
PAID J 


PAID TO 1 










_.._, 




1 










1 




1 










i 




1 










1 




1 














1 








1 


i 




1 










1 














1 








































1 


























__^1 












1 












t! 










|l 








il 


[ £_ 



7838 



RENTER DEPUTY 

Jake Jacobsen e*-Be«t©e¥3tiir Ij . ^ 

^ ^ ^ „ /-^^t- Palay^^^^^ 

».DDRE 



L_1m ^"4.!/f^ 




cy-^,1^^^ 865 

- - (7^ BOX NO. ___2°2_ 

^'^ ^,0 

jTAL J C. 33 

TE l-16-( 




7839 



^J^f^TKu yyr.vcK.: 3i:rJATL<: sklsc 



L'aul H, BlatK.i!! 



I ;i:'.,-; j'.jI/ dv/Oi-ii, hert:h/ dsooa 



Rockwell (ni;cfnai;Ioaal, (fechany, Okldhomy. Au.;ji.!5<; 1'), 1970 M:'.y 15. 1972 

{C':^.2?jrLP:^.'^j~:l^j.'i±ti • ^i^'^'' iSi:^A. "■"*'■'■''■ L^^lrl... 



.! •■ii'Aolr.yitd a-j a oilot for ANiPC. 



I'l oV.ot.-j coolii ■>£ rV.s 



Afvil'X <li ;h; '.;{•; t'l ■.■r:i ;!«'.'. Tij !['.•; b/thj t/.o. S-ji-.i^i 3-:li;;r Corr.tuitt.ji on 

v^ec .i>":a;ii-.-J./ 

?.nd to t!'.; ■•>-3 u o: tr.y Vnowla-l_{4, thiy a r-J t ru-j and accurate r«"or.U o: 
illj'; tl -/'X it-.S ir.i.,':>: co-oUo'i-ji by ir.i. 

i. Attach!'! to thii afu<'.j.vit a r* photo co?i-ij oc ttiy p-ir jo.ial lo^jj, 
v.tiit.a I c--i-;i:/ .'.i jiia^ truj ;•.;;! a'j.ar.icc, lor t!:i U^:-jj U..;o1 in ;.>.irc 2. 

I. On ci.i f )U j-.vin^ ili^;.: J, pAi;jiiJ;r» a'y oar i th*: i\lr oraf: "i ivjli-:'. jJ: 

A. I'lvj': i.'.cc, tli/t-t <-.- i;iir'.;;it o: :'.i_j;.t :\jv..-., ^i j >-i.i > ;r'i .-..\;a'.-) 

ij. I.*.; I juij.^j 'j:! :.:/ pr,-/L'/i.i.^ aifijii'l:, I irn up.abl-'i to ri'.Mil 
m i^'2x\'i-jr3 v/e had on che flights In question. Mr, Harold 
C. Ni-l.ii)!! 13 ch-e only p.i j Jin/jr I J;ctc.ic_ly kmr.'/ of ;i'..! h.i nuy 
or may noc have boen on ill of chose fliijht;. ) 
S. I J'.AV! (of lo not hav^) an/ «•-.• lolliction oi s-ijinj, tn-Jitin^, or 



Affidavit 



discus 3 injf John Connally while at Page Airways. Washington. D.C. 
during March 1971. 

6. (Any other Information which you consider pertinent) 

■ ,.,f I again stace that to the best of my recollection, I have never 

V "J^ J ff i%seen, met or spoken to Mr. >3hn Connally In person. 



'^-^ 



<:>d;;(. ,^';>--^ ^-^'^w Expire, M^^ 



«76 



7840 



ASSOCIATCO MILK rRODUCCES, INC. , 

DAILY AIRCRAhT FUGHT HCI'OUr 
. Kf OK AirtruANE ■. ■-' '• .. .. MODITL ('c L1CC-5.ENO.U '' *■_ . DATE 




/. 


•A/ 


). 


^ LLl-*^" TonC^ _ 


;v , ,_. 


;^i^ 


c ■-■'^•■^ 


".■•.•'.■/' j'-VJ" 




V'' 


;,^t\'c» 


— !-i 


TM 


/''..'t 


// - 


?. 





: 





—- 


'-— 
















3. 
















4. 




























5. 




























6. 














OTALS 


-- 


<' 


— =— 


™ 


— 


//K- 


/Y- 


ISI P 


USSt'JC-llKS ANO "X" FLrCKTSM 


»DE DAILY 1 




-.- 


1 


z 

5 
2 

S 


3 

_6. 
3 
6 




i 


TIME - HOUnS AND TENTHS OF HOURS 


1'. 

|6 


3 
V 




MRCRA,^T 


LC^TENC. 


»IC„TeN=. 


UKCt 1 


i«-''r'' 


l». 




V 


2 
S 


3^ 




TIME EROUOKT 
FORKABO r 


--f.\'. / 


?.'/.? 


,'.V. V 


1 


i 




3 
6 




-J 


_2 

5 


3 

6 




TODAY'S TIKE " 


1 7. , 


■ ', c 


• -i' (T 


i 


{ 


h 


3 






2 


3 




TOTAL TIME 


L^-y-.J 


7-?>- i 


,'.?r/ 






U 




S 


6 


!''f'- 


INSTBUKENT: KIGHT: Ol'.MI CHECK: MO. 1 WO. I 


\ 


/~"/-y .- ' 




/^•/,^i^>A-^ • Btslil 


















I 


KO PILOT 





















ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS, INC. 
DAILY AIRCRAFT FUGHf REPORT 

-<y^fJIjl!';-:^^'-ooBi._d>CL license i,o. n.^'CJj<___cf.Tz_iss__-y/ 



P<iL 



i-rr 



>:-']■ : 



111 



lO'A" rT_IG:iTS J.'.ADE 



DULY lO I .'■■.<, 



Wl 



m 



• CUI'S ".NO TEMTIS Cr MOU~S 



I I 



/ .' ■•• 



; / 



7841 



OF AIRPUANE 



ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS, INC. 
DAILY AiriCriAI-T FUGHT REI Or<r 
MODEL / '' LICENSE NO. t( 



./dr-_6-77 



























l"ic«t 


oepaVtSre 


POINT OF 
ARRIVAL 


TIME 


T *CM 


r ivc 


'.;-vj^;;.i 




» . r 


•«o- 


OtyAHTUBC ARWIVAL 


J 


• 




.r^/" 






/ '. 


AOE 




.._ 


___ 






























— — - 


--■■ 












A.'jl.pr.cr-:ns Ano 


"X" |-| ICHTS M 






-.^„._-. 


...-^. 












s 










-^t r 


— -' 




DAILY TOTA 




/ 


-— 


— 



4 si 



« si 6 



TOOAY'S TIME 



TIME - HOURS AND TItMTHS OF HOURS 



^h 



ASSOCIAICO MILK P|-;ODUCI "S, INC. 

DAILY AIRCOAI T ri.lCHT Ijri'OWT 
\KE OF AIRPLANE ^/./^^Vr^ MODEL ._^<7 _ LICENSE NO. ^ /^('/j^ DATE . . Z ^^ .y^. rSZ / ^ 



^/) K- 



f^i X- 



1. 
2. 
3. 

LIST PASSENGERS AND "X" FLIGHTS MADE 



7J^<.? 



DAILY TOTALS 



TODAY'S TIME 
TOTAL TIME 



TIME - HOURS AND TENTHS OF HOURS 









z^.s_ 



NSTRUMENT: 



^^^•kl^^^7-a-^'- 



OMWI C HECK: HO. I -* / jj*, <2. N O. 2 " Q j- Q 

i_ ^'z — 

\lC6\,//LsL JI 1! • 






7842 



<E OF AIRPLANE 



ASSOCIATCD MIIK PRODUCCKS, INC.. 

DAILY AinCRAfT TLIGIIT HEl'Of(T 
ODEL UICCNCE NO. N 



S.-^f..^ 



1. 


'" 


' rc?'.VTSMr 


/ 


rl. 


l" 




'j''"'m: 


^"^^ 




--"'-4---'" 


'--- 


/ ' 


■- 


1™ 


dKl^ 


' 




2. 






■■> .. ■ 












1 














3. 
4. 
5. 
6. 




/-/ r 






', 


'/V..V 


1 


^ 












_.x/9_ r 








■i^iM 


■7Ci 1. 


U^J- 








'l-(-7 


'/( 










































yf 


^_ 


— =- 










LIST PASSENGERS AND 


"X" FLIGHTS WADE 


DAILY TOTALS 






■',''■' 




X 


_2 


3^ 






_2 








TIME - HOURS AND TENTHS OF tlOunS 


1 


2 


3 






2 






.IPCH.FT 


LEFTr,<=. 


m<;„Te~c. 


. MCC 


'" 


_4^ 
1 




K 




5 




— 




' "_'_ 1 


2. 


3_ 






2 






TIME BROUGHT 
FORVIARD 






















. 


' 1 


.5_ 


i 

_3_ 
6_^ 






2 


3 




TODAY'S TIME 


s.s 


5.5- 


5-,? 

















1 








2 


















_4_ 




Ls. 


_6. 







J 






L2 


--.j.<r 




==i-J 




. 


L-, 



HOOD: 

REMARKS: 



NSTHUMENT: 



OMNI CHECK: NO. 1 



I'i -'-- 




ASSOCIATCO MILK PRODUCERS, INC. 
DAILY AliiCRAKr FLIGHT RM>OnT 



(■'^ — . 



MODEL (. £l LICENSE NO. N_^^ ti£ DATE ' 



5 



f}^ 









7^i2A 



-' ,,.»5<^CNGERS AND "X" FLIGHTS MADE 



DAILY TOTALS 






J_J_ 



/ /"•/'; 



TODAY'S TIME 
TOTAL TIME 



TIME - HOURS AND TENTHS OF HOl/PS 



:m^ 



'/.'■' 



2A..21 



'J/iT ^ 



:■/, .' -f' 



HOOD: 
flCr.:A.HKS: 



INSTRUMENT: 



— ^ -^ Vjf-pirsT 



OMNI CHECK: 


NO. 1 


/.'' 


/.' r 





'^•:V?>-' 






^'\/) 



7843 




7844 



DA-IH 


FLIGHT 
FROM 


Y 










CLASSIFICATION 


r^nr 












OF r 


..^ 


AIRCHAFT HAKC 


"iSi" 


CNGtNC 


M.-. 










i J. /f 


>'-/-r 


\' 


..>-/.-V--. 


, • , 












^=°^ • 


l-'^f 


- '- { 1 


WJ.; 


















«Vv i^-^'''' 


/>( n 


A'/.V 


















M\ ^ -0' 


■/■'/•^i/ 


/-'r/{. / 


















li} ro 


//(■^^ 


^>/rr 


/ ' 
















\\] ^.^' 


^ //-r 


Uri.:' 


,-, 
















^, Vif. 


Ha^' 


>-<?r 


/■ 




n 


•V 










\ >'? 


'^nr . 


pR) 


?i 


,, 


,, 


//■ 










1 ^a 


Dill- 


^iV~ 


/' 


,, 


(1 












7'/^ 


SnT 


ncH 


n 


„ 


n 


// 










I 3'^ 


T>Ln 


r.^r. 


n 


„ 


,, 


1< 










THE RECORD ON THIS 












PILOT. 




ATTEST 


EOBY 









c...,,o,..,ro...,.,„T....... 




7845 




7846 




7847 



'mvn.0 STATE.] .;;c;[ATS SEr,.v;c 

COiVfNfTTTEE OU 'Pl^^^IDEUTTAr, 
'CAMPAIGN A':C:;7ITIS3 



AFFIl;Avi;\^ 



i, ;>icL'ijy tJohen, hdvir.g boon LuLy svror:!, .Ij hereby d-ipos; and 

T:i5 fol].ovrlr.^ ii an ajproxi:.'.'.'.: j ii-nzsnary oc" r:v/ repli03 co yiozzi-yaj 
by staff :r:Or::borj of th2 Onitad ;]', i:iJ Senat ; JjL;ct Coc-Titc i-i on 
Prejid=:iti£l 'Jiapaiiii A-;vivlT;iej, 

i am Cniaf of tha Uiicy Brarua of -che Co- .;•. ):liT:y Op-3ri-ion3 Division 
of the Agricultural ot i^xlLization i!V.l Conser'.-i';L jh 3er^/-ioe of th^ 'inited 
States Dspart.T.ent of Agrioi-iltura, fa the t'?.ll itid winter of l/JJ and 
'..Inter aiid spring of 1971, I was 'jhlif of th • .^rj-jrani Dev;.'. ;r;;n5nt Branch 
of the Livestock and Dairy Division of the A/'.'i^ultixral St?.'oili :ation and 
Conservation Service ol' che Unite;i. .joates D-3::ifGment of Airic'il!;ure. 
Included in n\y responsibilities vrij the gatherln.^ and analy::it'.g of infor- 
mation relative to the irilk support program and the preparation of a docket 
showing the criteria and statistical data reLi-Jl on to establish the 
recoLTnended suppsrt price. 

The support pro^rara for miL?. ii require i by the Agricultural Act of 
19^9 as amended, which required for the marketing year involved that milk 
be supported at such level between 75 and 90 percent of parity as the 
Secretary determines is necessary to assure an adequate supply. 

I, with the assistance of S.E.T. Began, Agricultural Economist in my 



7848 



branch, did draw up the docket covering the marketing year I97I-72 which 
recommended a support price for milk, as provided for under the afore- 
mentioned act, of $l+.66 per hundredweight. (A copy of said docket is 
attached hereto as Exhibit A.) 

The statistics set forth in the docket were based on estimates made 
by the Interagency Dairy Support Estimates Committee, which was comprised 
of representatives of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 
Economic Research Service, Foreign Agriculture Service, and Export Market- 
ing Service, all within the USDA. The committee prepared estimates or 
projections of effects on production, consumption, government purchases 
and costs of support at 75 percent, 80 percent and 90 percent of parity 
and at varying price support levels between $i+.66 and $i+,92. (Several 
tables containing these projections are attached hereto as Exhibit B.) 
Based on these estinates and the statutory duty of assuring an adequate 
supply of milk, and after discussion with Mr. Keister Adams, Deputy 
Director of the Livestock and Dairy Division and Mr. Reuben Jones, 
Director of the Division, I prepared the docket calling for a level of 
$i+.66 of support per hundredweight which included an e}rtensive justifica- 
tion for that level. After preparation of this docket, I sent it for 
approval to Mr, Jones. This docket also went to the General Counsel's office' 
and to the Budget Division Office both of which approved it. The docket 
was subsequently approved by the Administrator of the Agricultural 
Stabilization and Conservation Service, Kenneth Frick, and by the Board 
of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation and was finally approved 
by Secretary of Agriculture Clifford M. Hardin as reflected in an announce- 
ment by him on March 12, I971. 



7849 



I have been responsible for the initial preparation and recommenda- 
tion of dockets authorizing milk price work programs for more than fifteen 
years. Sometime after March 12, I97I, but before March 25, I971 (probably 
during the week of March 22-26), I began receiving phone calls from persons 
in the Office of the Administrator of the Agricviltural Stabilization and 
Conservation Service asking such questions as, "What would be the effect 
upon supply, demand, government purchases and costs of raising price 
supports to the level of 85 percent of parity and what would the CCC 
purchase prices have to be." I was quite surprised at this questioning 
because it was the first such questioning immediately after a price 
support decision was made and announced that I had received in my experience 
at the Department of Agriculture. Moreover, questions such as these were 
taken into consideration as part of the inquiry which led to the docket 
approved on March 12, 1971. To these questions, I based ny estimates on 
the estimates that had previously been prepared. 

On March 25, 1971, a press release came out with the announcement 
that the price support level for milk for 1971-72 would be raised to 
$U.93 per hundredweight. Normally I prepared a draft of the press release, 
but I was not asked to do so on this occasion. Neither was I asked to 
prepare an amended price support docket prior to the issuance of that 
announcement. Although announcements sometimes precede preparation of the 
docket, it would be the normal practice to prepare an amended docket for 
that year for submission to the CCC Board of Directors before the announce- 
ment. 



30-337 O 74 - pt. 17 - 21 



7850 



Shortly after the March 25, 1971, annovincement of the price support 
level raise, I was told to prepare an amended docket, because such was 
the desire of Mr. Carl Farrington, Deputy Administrator for Commodity 
Operations for the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 
of the United States Department of Agriculture. I was told to keep it 
as brief and sinrple as possible. In preparing the amended docket, I 
emphasized some of the factors which could justify raising the price 
support level. The justification was very short. (A copy of the amended 
docket is attached hereto as Exhibit C.) 

To the best my recollection, this situation was the first time in 
my experience of preparing milk price support dockets that an increase in 
the price support program had been announced before an original price 
support level was given the opportunity to first become implemented. I 
was never consulted in any manner, nor did I have any knowledge of any 
action which led to a decision to raise the milk price support level 
subsequent to March 12, 1971, before the March 25, 1971 announcement, 
other than the above mentioned general questioning from individuals in 
the office of the Administrator of the Agricultiiral Stabilization and 
Conservation Service within a few days prior to the MEirch 25th annoimce- 
ment, 1^ advice was neither asked for nor given as to the wisdom of such 
a price support level increase prior to the announcement of said increase. 




subscribed and sworn to before me 

this Jl_S_ day of ^^^.^ , 197^. 

My Commission Expires Seof 30. 1975 



7851 



EXHIBIT A 



"For Official Use Only" and "Secure Storage Required" Provisions 
Haired on March 12, I97I . 



CCC Docket MCP 98a Milk Price Support Program, 1971-72 

Approval by Board : March 3> 1971 



Approval by Clifford M. Hardin 

Secretary of Agriculture : March 22, I97I 



Press Release No. 8^3-71 was issued on March 12, 1971 . 



Regulations : Not published in Federal Register because action was 
superseded by Amendment 1. 



7852 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Washington, March 12, 1971 
Secretary Hardin Announces Milk Support, Dairy Purchase Prices for 1971-72: 

Secretary of Agriculture Clifford M. Hardin today announced the support 
price for manufacturing milk will be $'+.66 per hundredweight in the 1971-72 
marketing year beginning April 1, 1971- This is the same as for the present 
marketing year. 

A year ago the dairy price support was increased by 38 cents per hundred- 
weight. Secretairy Hardin said "this was the biggest increase that has ever 
been made at the beginning of a marketing year. This was done because milk 
production was declining, and it was in keeping with our obligation linder the 
statutes to provide sufficient milk supplies for the 1970' s". Following this 
increase, milk production moved upward in 1970. 

In making this announcement, the Secretary said he realized that some 
dairymen believe that the support price should be increased. However, after 
careful review of the situation and the provisions of the law. Secretary 
Hardin declared that he felt today's action was in the long-term best interests 
of the dairy producers. . . .... 

"The long time well being of dairymen," the Secretary declared, "requires 
that prices be kept at levels which will permit the overvrtielming proportion of 
milk to clear through commercial markets. Dairymen, like all farm producers, 
are faced with increased costs. But they know from past experience that they 
do not benefit when dairy production substantially exceeds demand and excessive 
surpluses pile up in Government warehouses. We must avoid this." 

The Secretary also einnounced that it will be necessary to purchase cheese 
iiLi-ing the coming months for use in USDA food programs. With these purchases, 
-'eoretary Hardin said that he believed that producer prices for milk would be 
strengthened. In this connection, the Secretary pointed out that on March 10 
more than 2.5 million pounds of cheese was purchased and buying offers are 
continuing. 

At the same time, the Secretary noted that the President has directed the 
Tariff Commission to conduct an immediate investigation under section 22 on the 
imports of Swiss or Qmnenthaler cheese, Gruyere -process cheese, and certain 
cheeses classified for tariff purposes as "Other" cheese having a purchase price 
of -lY cents per pound or more. The Secretary has recommended to the President 
that this action be taken in view of the sharp increase in 1970 of the imports 

(more ) 
^'*'*'' USDA 843-71 



7853 



or these cheeses and the need to protect the price support for milk in the face 
ol" these increasing imports. The Tariff Commission has been directed to examine 
the feasibility of continuing the present price break system of controls at 
different specified price levels, including price levels which may fluctuate 
with the support price of milk as well as the feasibility of quotas for cheeses 
■ at all price levels. 

The Agricultural Act of 1970 suspended until April 1, ig?**, the mandatory 
requirement to support butterfat in farm-separated cream. However, Ccnmodity 
Credit Corporation will continue to buy butter as well as nonfat dry milk and 
cheese to carry out the price support objective for manufacturing milk. 

As a result of the change in the law, CCC's purchase prices for butter are 
reduced by about 2 cents per pound. The Secretary expressed the hope ihat the 
lo\%'er price for butter would result in higher commercial consuoiption and reduced 
CCC purchases and stocks. CCC now has large inventories of butter which total 
:about 100 million pounds. The lower butter price is being offset by an increase 
of 1.2 cents a pound in the purchase price of nonf&t dry milk. This combination 
t)f butter and powder prices will enable manufacturing plants to pay farmers, on 
the average, the support price of $^.66 per hundredweight for milk. 

Prices received by farmers for manufacturing milk (adjusted to average 
railkfat content) averaged $U.72 per hundredweight during April 1970 - January 1971. 

The support price is for miiv of average millcfat content (approximately 
3.67 percent). 

(more) 



7854 



The support buying prices for the 1971-72 marketing year will be: 



Purchased and - Purchased on 
produced before or after 
April 1, 1971 April 1, I97I 

• • • cents per lb. • • • 



Butter, U.S. Grade A or higher: 



New York, N.Y., and Jersey City 

and Mevark, N.J. 70-75 68.75 

California, Alaska, and Ha%)ali 70.00 67.75 

Washington and Oregon 1/ 67.75 

Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabeuna, Georgia, Florida, 

and South Carolina 69.75 67.75 

U.S. Grade B ; 2 cents per pound less than for U. S. Grade A 

The price of butter located at euiy other point will be the price at a 
designated market, either New York, Seattle, or San Francisco, less 80 
percent of the lowest published domestic railroad freight rate i>er pound 
gross weight for a 60,000 pound carlot, in effect at the beginning of this 
marketing year, from such other point to the designated market named by the 
seller. 

Produced before Produced on/or after 
April 1, 1971 April 1, 1971 
. . . cents per lb. . . . 

Cheddar cheese, U.S. Grade A or 

higher, standard moisture basis 52.0 52. 

Nonfat dry milk (spray) U.S. Extra 
grade (but not more than 3- 5 percent 
moisture): 

50-pound bags, with sealed 
closures 27.2 28. U 

1/ Calculated by use of freight rates. 



USDA 8U3-7I 



7855 



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

UNTIL PRESS RELEASE IS ISSUED 

SECURE STORAGE REQUIRED 



SUMMARY 

Milk Price Support Program, 1971-72, MCP 98a 

A. Ttie docket authorizes a milk price support program by establishing 
1 price for manufacturing milk of $U.66 per hundredweight, the 
same level as for the 1970-71 marketing year. 

P. The docket differs from prior years in that it does not provide 

for supporting butterfat in farm- separated cream. The requirement 
to support butterfat was suspended by the Agricultural Act of 
1Q70. 



CALL SIDNEY COHEN, EXTENSION U037 
IF MORE INFORMATION IS NEEDED 



FOH vi-'FICIAL USE ONLY 



7856 



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

UNTIL PRESS {lELEAGE IS ISSUED 

SECURE STORAGE REQUIRED 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 
Washington, D. C. 20250 



JAN 13 197^ 



To: Board of Directors, Commodity Credit Corporation 

From: Director, Livestock and Dairy Division 

Subject: Milk Price Support Program, 1971-72, MCP 98a 

Attached hereto is a docket setting forth the basis and providing for 
a program to support the price of milk to producers by establishing 
3 support price of $U.66 per hxuidredweight for msuiufacturing r'lk. 

A proposed press release is attached. 

Attachments Recommended: 



Concurred: J/\|\J 2 1971 



Deputy Adni ni sfr^tor , 
I'on-jnodi ty Operations 



,."^..<. - ^.w ^/.A/A 



Director, 
Dairy Division / 



livestock and 



Approved for submission to 
the Board of Directors, 
Commodity Credit Corporation 

Executive Vice President 
Commodity Credit Corporation 



KOH ■1FFICIAI, USE ONLY 



7857 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

UNTIL PRESS KELEAT.E IS ISGUFD 

SiXnjRE STORAGE REqUIRKD 

Milk Price Support Program, 1971-72, MCP 98a 
A. INTRODUCTION 



I . Purpc 



This docket authorizes a program providing for the support prxce of 
tU.66 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk to producert: during 
the marketing year beginning April 1, 1971. The support will be 
carried out throvigh purchases of dairy products by Commodity Credit 
Corporation. 

Justification 



Legislation . The Agricultural Act of 19^9> as amended, requires 
the Secretary to support the price of milk at such level not in 
excess of 90 percent nor less than 75 percent of the parity price • 
therefor as of the beginning of the marketing year, as the 
Secretary determines necessary in order to assure an adequate 
supply. The Act specifies that the price support shall be 
provided through purchases of milk and the products of milk. 
The Agricultural Act of 1970 amended the Agricultural Act of 
I9I49 by suspending until March 3I) 197^, the operation of the 
mandatory price support program for butterfat. This gives the 
Secretary greater flexibility in setting the CCC purchase price 
of butter in supporting the price of milk. 

Present and Previous Support Prices . The support prices for 
the present 1970-71 marketing year axe $U.66 per hundredweight 
for manufacturing milk and 71.5 cents per pound for butterfat 
in faj-m- separated cream. These prices were 85 percent of the 
parity equivalent and 75 percent of parity, respectively, as 
of the beginning of the 1970-71 marketing year. The manufacturing 
milk support price for the I968-69 and 1969-7O marketing years 
was $U.2t3 per hundredweight which was 89 and 83 percent of the 
parity equivalent, respectively. 

Recommended Support Level . On the basis of recent and prospective 
production conditions, it is estimated that a support price for 
manufacturing milk at $U.66 per hundredweight, the same level as 



KOH OhTICIAL USE ONLY 



7858 



the 1970-71 level of price support, will be necessary to continue 
to assure an adequate sui>ply of milk and its products in the 1971-72 
marketing year. It is estimated that this support price for manu- 
facturing milk will be 80 percent of i>arity equivalent price as of 
the beginning of the marketing year. 

D. Production, Prices, Purchases and Inventories . Based on revised 
data, milk production during April 1970 through January 1971 was 
98.^ billion pounds, 1.0 billion pounds more than the sane period 
a year earlier as declining cow numbers were more than offset by 
increased production per cow. Production was above year earlier 
levels for each month during the current marketing year. Milk pro- 
duction has reversed its downward trend that began in the 1965-66 
marketing year and is increasing slightly. The downtrend in the 
number of milk cows un farms h&s slowed. During January 1971, cow 
numbers were only 1.1 percent below a year earlier. 

Production for the entire I97O-71 marketing yeax is estixnated at 
117.6 billion pounds, \ip 1.0 percent from I969-7O. Commercial 
consumption of milk and dairy products is expected to be about the 
same as last year. 

Market prices for butter were at or close to CCC purchase prices 
from April 1970 through January 1971. Market prices for Cheddar 
cheese (Uo pound blocks) held steady frcni ^^il through August 
1970 and then trended \ipward to about 5 cents over CCC ' s purchase 
price in November. Since then, the price dropped 2 cents in 
January and through the first half of February has risen 1 cent. 
The higher cheese prices have eiuibled cheese plants to»pay higher 
than the svqjport price for manufacturing milk in recent months. 
Plants making butter and nonfat dry milk also paid higher prices 
in order to conpete for milk. United States average mantifacturing 
milk prices to producers, adjusted to euinual average test, rose 
from $14.65 per hundredweight in April I970 to a high of $4.86 in 
December 1970 and then decreased to $lt.83 in January 1971. The 
average price for the ten months beginnijig April I970 was $1*. 72. 
The proposed I97I-72 support price for manufacturing milk will 
assure that prices received by producers will continue near recent 
levels. 

The higher prices paid for milk used to make cheese have continued 
to encourage a diversion of milk from plants making butter and 
nonfat dry milk to cheese plants. Production in the first 10 
months of the marketing year was up by 3 percent for butter and 10 
percent for American cheese. Nonfat dry milk production, A^il- 
December 1970, was iip about 10 percent. 



7859 



CCC price support purchases, delivery basis, April 1970 through 
January 1971, totaled 212 million pounds of butter, 1+3 million 
pounds of cheese and 393 million pounds of nonfat dry mllX. It 
is estimated that for the entire I97O-7I marketing year CCC will 
purchase 285 million pounds of butter, 56 million pounds of cheese 
and '+50 million pounds of nonfat dry milk. 

During the period April 1, 1970, through January 31, 1971, CCC 
committed to program uses about 185 million pounds of butter, U8 
million pounds of cheese and U71 million pounds of nonfat dry milk. 

CCC's uncomnitted inventories on Jeinueiry 31, 1971> were 62 million 
pounds of butter, 19 million pounds of nonfat dry milk, and 7 
million poxinds of cheese. 

Commitments to prograjns of nonfat dry milk and cheese during 
Januaxy-March 1971 likely will be approximately equal to purchases 
and consequently unconmitted inventories on March 31, 1971, will 
be low. However, purchases of butter are expected to exceed 
commitments and uncomnitted inventories of butter on that date 
are projected at about 110 million pounds. 

Milk production in the marketing year which begins April 1, 1971, 
is projected at II8.I billion pounds, up one-half billion pounds, 
or O.U percent, from I970-7I. Commercial use of milk and dairy 
products is expected to increase slightly and CCC purchases £ire 
projected at 6.5 billion pounds of milk equivalent, compcired to 
6.7 billion pounds expected for 1970-71. CCC purchases in the 
1971-72 marketing year are projected as follows: butter, 265 
million pounds; cheese, 75 million pounds; nonfat dry milk, 50C 
million pounds. 

If the requirement to support the price of butterfat in farm- 
separated cream had not been suspended, it would have been 
necessary to increase the support price of butterfat by about 
three cents a pound to keep the support at the legal minimum 
level of 75 percent of parity. This would have required an 
increase in CCC's purchase price of butter of about 2.5 cents 
a pound and an off-setting reduction in CCC's purchase price 
of nonfat dry milk. 

Proposed Purchase Price . It is proposed that the CCC purchase 
price of butter be reduced by approximately two cents a pound 
and that the purchase price of nonfat dry milk be increased by 
1.2 cents a pound. These price changes are approximately off- 
setting in terms of the ability of processors as a group to at 
least pay the support price. These changes are steps in the 
direction of making butter more competitive in the market and 
placing; a greater emphasis on the value of the nonfat portion 
of milk. 



7860 



In addition, it is being proposed that purchase prices of butter 
be lowered 2 l/U cents per pound in the West Coast States, including 
California, Oregon and Washington in view of the heavy accianulation' 
of butter by CCC, particularly in California. This proposed 
reductionlwlll lower prices to farmers for milk by about 1 cent 
per hundredwei^t . 

F. Impracticability of Obtaining Assurance From Processors . Section 
UOl (e) of the Agriculture^. Act of 19'*9> ^^ amended, provides 
that whenever any price support or surplus removal operation 
is carried out through purchases from processors, the Secretary 
shall, to the extent practicable, obtain assurances frcca processors 
that producers of the milk involved have received or will receive 
maximum benefits from such operation. ' 

The resvilts of the present and past programs provide satisfactory 
assurance that purchases of dairy products from processors and 
handlers will effectuate the objectives of the price s^qprport 
program. It will not be practical to undertake to obtain from 
processors further assurance In this respect for tvo reasons. 

First, there normally is a substantial range in prices paid for 
milk associated with differences in use, quality, location, 
competition and volximes, and efficiencies of plant operations. 
Second, in order to maximize the effectiveness of the support 
program, dairy products will be purchased both from processors 
and from handlers who can perform the necessary functions of 
asseinbling carlot from small processors. 

B. AUTHORIZATION 

I. Provisions of Programs 

A. Level of S\rpport . The general level of prices to producers for 
milk shall be supported during the marketing year April 1, 1971, 
through March 31, 1972, on the basis of .-$4.66 per hundredweight 
for manufacturing milk of yearly average butterfat content. It 
is estimated that the aforementioned s\q>port price for manufacturing 
milk will be 80 percent of the parity equivalent price as of the 
beginning of the marketing year, and that on the basis of 
developments dxiring the past year and current prospective economic 



7861 



conditions, it will assure an adequate supply of milk in the 
1971-72 marketing year. Such support price for manufacturing milk 
shall be adjusted upv/ard, if necessary, to reflect at least 75 
percent of the April 1971 parity equivalent price to be published 
in the March 30, 1971, issue of Agricultural Prices. 

B. Method of Support . The support prices to producers for manufacturing 
milk v.il-1 be carried out by purchases of dairy products from 
manufacturers and handlers as set forth herein. Purchases \ri21 be 
made of butter, Cheddar cheese, and nonfat dry milk and such other 
products hereinafter authorized. 

C. Purchase Prices . 

1. Bu lk Containers . Purchase prices for bulk butter in 60 to 80 
pound containers, nonfat dry milk in 50 pound bags, and 
natural Cheddar cheese shall be those indicated below: 

Purchased 

and Produced Purchased 

before on or after 

April 1, 1971 April 1. 1971 

Cents per lb . 

Butter, U.S. Grade A or higher ; 
New York, N.Y., and Jersey City 

and Newark, N.J. 70.75 68.75 

Seattle, V7ash. , San Francisco, 
Cal., California, Alaska, and 

Hawaii 70.00 67.75 

Washington, Oregon 1/ 67.75 

Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 
Georgia, Florida, South Carolina 69.75 67.75 

U.S. Grade B: 2 cents per pound 
less than for U.S. Grade A 

Produced before Produced on and 
April 1, 1971 after April 1, 197I 

Cheddar cheese, U.S. Grade A 
or hipher, standard moisture 
basis 52.0 52.0 

Nonfat dry milk (spray), U.S . 
Extra grade (but not more than 
. 3.% noisture ): 27.2 28. U 



17 Calculated on basis of freight rates. 



7862 



The butter purchase price at any other point shall be determine^ 
by subtracting from the price at a designated market named by 
the seller 80 percent of the lowest published freight rate 
in effect at the beginning of the marketing year from such 
other point to such designated market. The designated markets 
are New York, N.Y. , San Francisco, California, and Seattle, 
Washington. 

2. Prices for Other Products eind for Products in Containers 

Other Ihan Those Above . On the basis of competitive offers, 
purchases of the following products in containers aiii- < 
meeting specifications suitable for program use may be 
made at prices which, in the judgment of the President or 
Executive Vice President , -CCC , will not exceed those which 
reflect the support price for manufacturing milk and provide 
a reasonable margin for additional packaging and processing 
costs: 

Print Butter 
Spray Nonfat Dry Milk, 
including vitaminized 
Process Cheddar Cheese 
Process American Cheese 

Purchases of dairy products other than those listed above 
may be made only upon specific determination by the President 
or Executive Vice President, CCC, that such purchases are 
desirable to effectuate the objectives of the program. 

Method and Area of Purchases . Purchases shall be made from 
manufacturers and handlers in carlot quantities on the basis 
of offers and acceptance pursuant to announcements setting 
forth the terms and conditicms of purchase, or such other method 
as may be approved, by the- President or Ejcecutlve Vice President, 
CCC, The product shall have been made in the United States 
from milk produced in the United States and shall not previously 
have been purchased by CCC. 

Period c'f Manufacture . The prices paid for any product manu- 
factured before April 1, 1971, shall not exceed prices authorized 
by the MilK and Butterfat Price Support Program for 1970-71. 

In connection with purchase contracts for dairy products in 
special packaging or form, contracts may be entered into pursiiant 
to competitive offers in February and Maxch 1972 for delivery 
of dairy jirsducts manufactured on and after f^-nril 1, I972, with 
provisioft 'for adjustment of the prices to reflect imr differences 
between the support purchase prices in effect before and after 
April 1, 1972: Provided however. That any contracts from offers 



7863 



received after aiuiouncement of support purchase prices for the 
1972-73 marketing year will not be subject to such adjustment. 

F. Utilization . Except as otherwise provided herein, products 
acquired under this program for the support of milk prices 
shall be disposed of in accordance with the docket "Disposal 
of Conmodity Credit Corporation Conmodities and Materials, 
CZ 200, Revision h" and all revisions and amendments of and 
supplements to such docket. 

Dairy products shall be made available to the Administrs ior 
of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of the Army as author-' 
ized and directed by Section 202 of the Agricultural Act of 
19^*9? as amended, and may be made available to penal &nd. 
correctional institutions as authorized by Section 210 of 
the Agricultural Act of 1956. 

Ti. Authority to Determine Detailed Operating Provisions . De- 
tailed operating provisions of the program consistent with 
the provisions of this docket and desirable for effective 
and efficient operation of the program may be determined 
by the President or Executive Vice President, CCC. 

II. Classification . 

This is a mandatory operation under the CCC price support program. 

ill. Administration Within the Department of Agriculture . 

his program will be ccoried out by the Agricxiltural Stabilization 
and Conservation Service under the general direction and super- 
vision of the Executive Vice President, CCC, pursuant to the bylaws 
of the Corporation. 

JV. I or Official Use Only Designation . 

nic "1-or Official Use Only" designation of this docket will terminate 
upon issuance of the press release. 



7864 



Milk Price Sujipart Program, 1971-72 ICP 96a 



Approved by CCC Boeu-d of Directore 
at meeting held on March 3. 1971 



I si Seelev G. Lodvfick 
Secreteurjr 
Commodity Credit Corporation 



Approfved: 



March 22. 19-^ 



/"/ ffl'^r^nee p, palmhY 



President, Ccmnodity Credit Corporation 

and 
Assistant Secretary for International 
Affairs cmd Ccumodity I^ograms 



March 22, 1971 



/s/ Clifford M. Hardin 



Secretary of Agricult\ire 



tOK OFKICIAL USE ONLY 



K!di^ 



7865 



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

UNTIL PRESS RELEASE IS ISSUED 

SECURE STORAGE REQUIPZD 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AOtlCULTUIAl STABIUZATION AND CONSEtVATION SEtVICE • WASHINOfON.O.C aOlSO 



DATEi January 18, 1971 

- ? ■ 1 ion 

TO: Board of Directors, Comnodity Credit Corporation 



SUBJECT: Availability of Funds Statement - Milk Price Support Program, 1971-72, 
MCP 98a 

Gross obligations under this authorization are estimated at $385.7 
million for price support operations during fiscal year 1972, This 
amount consists of purchases of $196.0 million of butter; v42,2 
million of cheese and $147.5 million of nonfat dry milk. 

Net expenditures for price support and related programs are expected 
to be $296.0 million for fiscal year 1972. 

It is estimated that Commodity Credit Corporation funds will be 
available for this purpose. 



Director, Budget Division 



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 - 22 



7866 



EXHIBIT B 



CALCULATION OF CCC FURCa^SE COSTS 





t-i y^ 


/. 6<: 








.ii '■ 


Purchase Price 


69.8/27.2 


67.8/28.3 


65.8/29.V 


6Ji .8/30.0 


59-6/32.7 


ii^' 


Cents per lb. 














Butter 


.70 


.68 


.66 


■ .65 


.60 


.-7j 


Cheese 


.5625 


.5625 


.5625 


.5625 


•5625 


. r 


irPM 


.295 


.306 


.317 


.323 


.350 


' '}.' 


Quantity- 














Mil, lbs. 














Butter 


280 


265 


250 


21*0 


205 


>!' 


Cheese 


75 


75 


75 


75 


75 




ITFWi 


500 


525 


550 


. 560 


6ltO 


:'£ - 


CCC Cost 














Mil. dol. 










1 




Butter 


196.0 


180.2 


165.0 


156.0 


123.0 


f:./ 


Cheese 


^2.2 


U2.2 


U2.2 


t2.2 


1*2.2 


bx. 


VFm 


1»^7.5 


160.6 


17U .'^ 


180.9 


22l*.0 


1 ' 1 



Total CCC Cost 385.7 383.0 381.6 379-1 \. , 389-2, 



Pi-ice 



r./ 



7867 



CalciOetlxi of CCC Piij-c-:-:?.ss dosts for Pi-e^crA Support Level ,, i 

^'^-'^ ^^''^' 'l-''r' ^"'^ ?^ ' ^^ T cw^'.ti' y ,'>■■''" 

k.66 . hM 'i-.-r 5.33 V-.'j 

l:21._l^. 1111. rb. ■ )lil:_lD. 

^80" ■^CS' 200 ?;-r 370 2 9' 

75 10 'J 150 ? ■' 

§09 iir too > ' ' - 650 S V - 



Cents/lb. CehtsAb. Cents/lb. Cents/lb. 





1970-71 


Sapport Level 


It. 66 


Suri3lu3 


1:11. lb. 


Butter 
Cheese 


280 ^' ^ 
65 .^^ 


iu?rc.i 


500 t ' - 



Butter 
Cheese 


.70 
.5625 
.295 ^-^ ' 


•TO 

.5625 . 

.295 


*' .651 

■ .5!i05 

.295 




.70 - V 

. .6295 .yj 

.377 i r 


CCC Ccsii 














mi. dol. 


mi. c.oi. 


mi^eoi. 




mi. cioi. 


&.itttr 
Cheese 


195.0 '9f.r 

35.6 3 .- 

i'>7.5 /:.- - 


190.0 

J!2.2 
l':7.5 


130.2 
5.J^ 

118.0 




259-0 ^~- 
9V.'). i. 
2l5.0 / 




mi, cToi. 


mi. Col. 


mi. e.p\. 




mi. cV.l. 


Total CCC Cost 


3S0.1- -w-. 


3C5.7 


253.6 


- ,.- 


5S3.it <- 



Pi'peec-Ir. iicra CCC sclcs ^•ill offr^ct cl-hsr cc-^-a r.uch as 
EuOi-ac'2 ^-ifl l;'.nfilir.G ro th.-.t pvLrc^::"ce costs iri.ll.bs 
equl'>alc;vt to net e-:-ri>:ncutui*e3". 






7868 



Estimated purchases and costs under the dairy price support 
program in 1970-71 marketing year and projections for 
1971-7 2 at alternative levels of support 





1970-71 




1971-7 2 




Item 


($4.66) 


1./$A.66 


: 2/$4.85 


: 3/$5.05 


Purchases 










Milk equivalent (Billion pounds) 


6.7 


6.5 


7.0 


7.8 


Butter (Million pounds) 


: 285 


265 


280 


305 


Cheese (Million pounds) 


56 


75 


90 


120 


Nonfat dry milk (Million pounds) 


460 


525 


565 


605 


Net expenditures (Million dollars) 


380 


386 


430 


493 


Purchase prices 4/ (Cents per pound) 










Butter 


69.8 


67.8 


67.8 


67.8 


Cheese 


52.0 


52.0 


54.0 


56.0 


Nonfat dry milk 


27.2 


28.4 


' 30.7 


'■ 33.2 



\J 80.5 percent of parity, based on data as of February 26. 

2J 83.8 percent of parity, based on data as of February 26. 

3/ 87.2 percent of parity, based on data as of February 26, 
4/ Announced prices for bulk products. 



7869 



1970-71 






19 


21- 


11 








$4.66 


A 


.66 




A 


.85 




5 


.05 


85 1/ 




80.5 


2./ 




83,0 


2/ 




87.2 2 


69.8 




67. C 






67.8 






67.8 


52 




32 






54 






56 


27.2 - 




28.4 






30.7 






53.2 



i"OH OFFIGIAL i &„ C^CLV 



Estiniattd I'Ufch;' scf. and costE under tho d;-;iry prici; supj-crl: program in 
1970-71 J.nd projecticns for 1971-72 at specified levels of support.' 



L^vci of fuppcrt (c-.'t) 
PerciTt of parity 

Forchasc prices - bull: 
Butter (cencs per lb) 
Chtose (cents p?r lb) 
KFDM (cents per lb) 



Frice support purch-ises 

Cutter (ril lbs) 

Cheese (r;ii lbs) 

ICfDyi (rf.il lbs) 



Ki]h Ev.iv. (bil lbs) 
Kct Er.per.diture (nil) 

1/ As of April 1, 1970 
2/ As of March 1, 1971 



285 


265 


230 


305 


56 


75 


90 


120 


460 - 


525 


565 


605 


•" "■"'"' 


-^ . 


- 




6.7 


6.3 


7.0 


7.8 


$380 


356 


430 


493 



7870 






'*- to 
•r- f3 



•a r— 
J- en 



> 


^ 
























c 


in 


«a- CO 


sO ro o 


CTl 


in «* 


cr\ 


in 


^ 


in CD o o in 


oo 


,_ 


CO 


o 


CM 
















• r-- m in i~. 


roco 


•a- 


a\ 






CTi o-> 


in n csi 


CD 


r-^ 


r^ 


ro 


r— 


cr> ro r— v£) 




ro 


in 


+j 


in 






CSJ 


o 


O 








in vD 






<J 


•b<» 


, — 


r~ 










r^ 






r^ 




(U 




















































o 


























l- 


























cx 


























C\J 


























r^ 


V£> 


c\j CO 


■=3- ro o 


f~~ 


o >3- 


'T 


in 


<?> 


CO o m o in 


o o 


r^j 


ID 


— 


<x> 




. . . 


- 










• CO r-- o f^ 


CO CO 


CT> 


CO 






CO CO 


•^ ro ro 


cn 


en 


a\ 


ro 


CM 


ID CM in 




ID 


CO 


i-~ 


<d- 




— 


r~ 


o 


o 




f — 




^ in 


" 




CTv 


w 


^— 






r— 


i-~ 




r— 






lO 




r^ 


















































t^ 


r^ o 


r-^ in o 


CM 


00 "a- 


rj 


ro 


in 


r^ CD in CD in 
• CO lo ID r^ 


in in 


CO 

CO 


o 

CO 


o 


r- ^ 


ro ro CM 


cr% 


00 


cr> 


ro 


CM 


ID CM ^3- 




in 


ro 


r-- 




, — 


, — 


o 


o 




^— 




^ in 


■• 




a» 


«— 


< — 


r— 




.— 




r— 






VO 




* 
















ro| tnl 








^ 


o' 






















r^ 


ro ro 


o ^ r-^ 




CO «3- 


C\J 


in 


r^ 


<* CM r— r^ r^ 


ro in 


CM 


C\J 


-^ 
















• CO ro in o 


in in 


r^ 


ro 


CT> 


vo ^ 


csi ro r- 




CO 


o^ 


ro 


CM 


«T •— en r- 




CM 


CM 


UD 




.— 


, 


o 


o 




r— 




^ in 


* 




cri 


r~ 


f— 


r— 


r— 


r^ 




r— 






VO 




' 


























JD JD xi J3 JD XI 


XI X) XI 


JD 


.Q 


jCi x> XI XI ja 






















</«► 


■v* 


■tJ 












4J +J 










• • • 








5 5 


• 




ID 




r~ r~ r~ 


^ 


f- 






^ 


~ 


rri tr\ ly^ r^ rr\ f<\ 


ca CO CO 


CO 


co 


m s £ Z Z 


IE 


JE 




1 1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 t 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 lA 1 1 


1 1 1 
t 1 1 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 
1 1 1 


1 
1 
1 
1 
1 

1 
1 


1 
1 
1 

1 

1 

1 
i 


1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 

1 1 1 1 1 
1 1 1 1 1 










1 1 1 J^ 1 1 


1 1 1 


1 


1 


1 1 1 1 1 










1 1 1 U 1 1 


1 I 1 


1 


1 


1 1 1 1 1 










1 1 1 O 1 1 


1 II 




1 


~^, 1 1 1 i 


j^ 1 




m 




1 • 1 4J 1 I 
1 1 1 in 1 1 


1 i 1 


1 


} 


-*'!!:: 


^ 1 




CD 

I- 


E 


• 1 1 1 >> 


1 1 1 


j«: 


1 


— ^ 1 1 1 1 


i 1 




3 


o 


1 1 1 •— 1 ■— 


1 1 1 


o 


1 


M 1 I ■ 1 






•IJ 




1 '■ 1 (D 1 CL 


1 1 1 


o 


1 


a> 1 1 1 1 


(U r— 




•(— 




1 1 1 ■»- 1 o. 


t 1 1 


4J 


1 


V> 1 1 i 1 


•o « 




TD 




I 1 1 U 1 3 


1 1 1 


1/1 


1 


>a 1 I 1 1 


CO 




c; 




1 1 1 I- 1 tn 








jc: 1 I 1 1 


I. •> 




Q) 




■ I 1 (U 1 


1 1 1 


r~ 


c 


U 1 1 .^ J^ 


cn <u 




Ci. 




1 1 I E I r— 


1 1 1 


<a 


o 


I. 1 1 .— .— 






X 




c o 1 E I <o 


• •III 






3 1 1 •€- Ir- 


en ca 


i/> 


a> 




O U) 1 O 1 -r- 


(U 1 1 1 


u 


+J 


es. 1 1 E E 


c w 


4J 






-r- 3 1 O 1 O 


mill 


u 


<o 


1 1 


-^ (U 


a. 


E 




4J 1 1 t- 


3 111 


Q) 


M 


O 1 1 >,T3 


I- r— 


•f— 






u E 1 C71 1 o; 


1 1 1 






c_> 1 1 s- cu 


3 o 


<u 


u 




3 >_ w C 1 5 


r- o 1 1 






O 1 1 -o ■•-> 


*-> .c 


u 


cn 




-o <o cn-r- m E 


m -r- C 1— 


O 


•r- 


• II ID 


<-> S 


Oi 


o 




O M- C C •(-> o 


•.- *J C31 lO 


u 


4-> 


|_ <U ->-> l- 


(O 


l- 


i_ 




I- -r- t S- <J 


(J m -r- -iJ 




13 


«n a> w r> o 


n- . 




CL 




CI. l^ -u •-- o 


t- q; Q> o 


en 




rj +j cu <<- CL 


•• 3 J^ 


.c 






i/i o en ci.r— 


O) E I- t— 


c 


r-~ 


• — ■*-» Oi C (O 


cu r: r- 




>, 




.^ (U .ii o 5 o 


e o o 


■r- 


la 


Ci. 3 .C O > 


O (O •— 


<o 


I. 




I— _J S- CD — • -U 


e Q u- 


■o 


+-> 


s- CO (-> z: Lij 


•■- s: z: 


»-> 






•r- (O O 


o 


c 


o 


3 


i- 




<c 






S 


s: 


t- 


«_} 




UJ 


h- 


l/> 


a. 




o 



.+J U r- 
■r- <i> to 
J- lO > 



< I- cr> M s 



r^ CmMv 



7871 



Estimated purchases and costs under the dairy price support 
program in I97O-7I marketing year and projections for 
I97I-72 at alternative levels of support 









1970-71 


1971-72 


Item 


($U.66) 


1/$U.66 


2/$U.78 


': 3/$U.92 ; 


|t/$5.21 


Production 


(Bil.lb.) 




117.7 


118.2 


118. »t 


118.6 


119.1+ 


Commercial Disappear- 
ance 
Surplus 


(Bil.lb.) 
(Bil.lb.) 




109.2 
6.7 


110.0 
6.5 


109.6 
6.8 


109.3 
7.2 


108.2 
9.2 


CCC Purchases 
Butter 
Cheese 

Nonfat dry milk 


(Mil. lb.) 
(Mil. lb.) 
(Mil. lb.) 




285 

56 

U60 


265 

75 

525 


275 

85 
5)+0 


290 

95 

570 


355 

150 
675 ■ 


CCC Purchase Price 
(bulk products) 
Butter CChicago) 
Cheese 
Nonfat dry milk 


Cents per 
Cents per 
Cents per 


lb 
lb 
lb 


69.8 
52.0 
27.2 


67.8 
52.0 
28.lt 


67.8 
53.3 
29.8 


67.8 
53.3 
31.6 


« 
67.8 
57.5 
35.2, 


Net e5cpenditures 


(Mil.dol.) 




380 


386 


Uio 


hk3 


590 ! 



1/ 80.5 percent of parity, based on data as of February 26. 
2/82.5 percent of parity, based on data as of February 26. 
3/ 85.0 percent of parity, based on data as of February 26. 
k/ 90 percent of parity, based on data as of February 26. 



Dairy production estimates show that surpluses will remain in the coming yeai- 
at about the present level. An increase in the support level magnifies the 
possibility of adding to the surplus. 



I 



7872 



1970-71 Dairy Estimates 



^^-tc'r-Av^ 



Date of Estimate 



Dairy Supply Estimates Committee 

3-23-70 11-17-70 3-2l»-71* 



Milk Prod. 


Bil.lb. 


117.2 


117.2 


117.7 


Surplus (Milk equiv. ) 


Bil.lb, 


7.3 


6.7 


6.7 : 


Butter 


Mil. lb. 


280 


.286 


• 285-290 


Cheese 


Mil. lb. 


110 


65 


56 : 


Nonfat dry milk 


Mil. lb. 


550 


500 


U60' i 

• i ■ 



Estimated expenditures. Mil. del. 



Uoi 



380 



380 



■"Latest indicated quantities: Not yet considered by inter-agency committee. 



7873 



EXHIBIT C 



"For Official Use Only" and "Secure Storage Required" Provisions 
Expired on May 2^. 1971 . 



CCC Docket MCF 98a , Milk Price Support Program, 1971-72 

Amendment 1 (Increases the support price) 



Approval by Board : May 12, 1971 



Approval by Clifford M. Hardin , 

Secretary of Agriculture ; May 25, 1971 



Press Release No. 969-7I was issued on March 2^, I97I . 
Press Release No. 98I-7I was issued on March 26, 1971 . 

Regulations : Date of Publication in Federal Register May 1, 1971 

Page No. 8237 

Federal Register Citation 36 F. R. 8237 






7874 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Washington, March 26, 1971 

USDA Annovinces Dairy Purchase Prices for 1971-72: 

The U.S. Depeurtment of Apiculture today annoxinced the prices it will pay 
for butter, nonfat dry milk, and cheese to carry out the 1971-72 support price 
of tU.93 per hundredweight for milk ^*ich was announced March 25 (Press Release 
USDA 969-71). The product purchase prices are those which are calculated to 
enable processors to pay producers, on the average, the support price of $^.93 
per hundredweight for milk. 

As announced March 12 (USDA release 8^*3-71), the purchase price for butter 
is being lowered 2 cents per pound. This reduction in the price of butter was 
made possible by a provision in the Agricultural Act of I97O which suspended 
the mandatory requirement for 8^ppo^ting butterfat in farm separated cream. 

The new support price for milk, and the new product purchase prices shown 
below become effective April 1, 1971> the beginning of the marketing year. 

Purchased €uid Purchased on 
produced before or after 
April 1, 1971 April 1, 1971 
- _ _ - _ cents per lb. - - - - - 

Butter, U.S. Grade A or higher: 
New York, N.Y. , and Jersey City 
and Newark, N.J. 70.75 68.75 

California, Alaska, and Hawaii 70.00 67.75 

Washington and Oregon 1/ 67.75 

Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, 

and South Carolina 69.75 67.75 

U.S. Grade B ; 2 cents per pound less than for U.S. Grade A 

rne price of butter located at any other point will be the price at a designated 
inarkei;, either New York, Seattle, or San Francisco, less 80 percent of the low- 
est published domestic railroad freight rate per pound gross weight for a 60,000 
pound carlot, in effect at the beginning of this marketing year, from such other 
poir.t to the designated market named by the seller. 

Produced before Produced on/or aftsr 
April 1, 1971 April 1. 1971 
---___ cents per lb. ------ 

r heddar cheese, U.S. Grade A or 
■higher, standai-d moisture basis 52.0 5*+. 75 

Nonfat dry milk (spray) U.S. Extra 
grade (but not more than 3.5 percent 
moisture ll 

50-pound bags, with sealed 
Closures 27.2 31.7 

1/ Calculated by use of freight rates. 

553l» USDA 981-71 



7875 



UHTEED 3TA1SS CBPARaSfflNT OF ACSlICUIiinJRE 
McDavld 388-Uoe6 W«Bhln«ton, Jtarch 25, 1971 

Support Price far Manufacturing ttLlk Increased 

Secretary of Agriculture Clifford M. Hardin today announced an upward 
adJuBtment of support price for nanufacturlng milk to $U.93 frca the $U.66 
support price announced by him on March 12 which was a continuance at that 
time of support at the sane level as for 1970. 

In announcing the new higher support level, Secretary Hardin stated such 
announcements are mini mums which cannot be lowered during that marketing 
season after once being announced, but which can be raised. Support levels 
con be lowered only at the beginning of the milk marketing year each April 1st . 

Secretary Hardin stated that there is a constant analysis of the milk 
production situation, and that farmer costfi have escalated sharply pairtlcu- 
larly in concentrate feed which has gone up $10 to $20 per ton. Farmers 
h^ye no wW- *o cut other costs to compensate for those which have risen. 



7876 



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

UNTIL APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY 

SECURE STORAGE REQUIRED 



SUMMARY 

Milk Price Support Program, 1971-72, MCP 98a, Amendment 1 

Authoif zes increase of (l) support price for manufacturing milk from 
$'1.66 to $U.93 per hundredweight, (2) purchase price of Cheddar cheese 
from ^2.0 to 5'+.75 cents per pound, and (3) purchase price of nonfat 
dry milk from 28. U to 31 -7 cents per pound. 



FOR OFI'ICIAL USE ONLY 



7877 



/ ;, \ ^- - 



( c 



FOR OFFICIAI, USE ONLY 

UNTIL AITROVKD BY THE 

SECRETAKY 

SECURE STORAGE REQUIRED 

UK'ITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE • V/ASHINGTON,D.C. 202.'.0 



To 

From 

Subject 



April 9, 1971 
Board of Directors, Commodity Credit Corporation 

Director, Livestock and Dairy Division 
Milk Price Support Program, I97I-72, MCP 98a, Amendment i 



This amendment increases the support price for manufacturing milk from 
$n.66 per hundredvfeight to $^+.93 pei" hundredweight. Also, the amendment 
increases the purchase price for Cheddar cheese from 52.0 to 5^.75 cents 
per poimd, and the purchase price for nonfat dry milk from 28. U to 31.7 
cents per pound. 

Press release No. 969-7I was issued on March 25, 1971 j and press release 
No. 981-71 on March 26, I97I. 

Recommended: 



Concurred: APR 9 W- 



C'-V 



Deputy Administrator, 
Commodity Operations •.' 



Director^/ 
Livestock and Dy/ry Division 

Approved for submission to 
the Board of Directors, 
Commodity Credit Corporation 



"/ 



J'-^. 



■;/ n 



'ic'ci''-'.^ Executive Vice President, 
Commodity Credit Corporation 



C 



FOR OFFICIAJ. USE ONLY 



7878 



Produced before 
April 1, 19 71 



Produced on/or- after 
April 1, 197-1 



cents per lb. 
5i+.75 

31.7 



Ched dar clieese, U.S. Grade A or 
higher, standard moisture basis 52 . 

Non fat dry milk ( spray) U.S. Extra 
grade (but not more than 3.5 percent 
moisture ) 27.2 

1/ Calculated by use of freight rates. 

The butter purchase price at any other point shall be determined by subtract- 
ing from the price at a designated market named by the seller 8o percent of 
the lowest published freight rate in effect at the beginning of the market- 
ing year from such other point to such designated market. The designated 
markets are New York, N.Y., San Francisco, California, and Seattle, Washington. 

III. For Official Use Only Designation 

The "For Official Use Only" designation of this docket will terminate 
on date of approval by the Secretary of Agriculture. 



Approved by CCC Board of Directors 
at meeting held on MAY" j^' 197 1 



( \ vli'vi Secretary 
Vommodity Credit Corporation 



Approved: 



President, Commodity Credit Corporation 

and 
Assistant Secretary for International 
Affairs and Commodity Pi-ograms 




»ereta:ry cf Aj^ri culture 



¥0]< OFFICIAI. Ur.E ONTjY 



7879 



FOR OFt'ICIAL USE ONLY 

UNTIL APPRCfVED BY THE SECRCTARY 

SECURE STORAGE REQUIRED 



Milk lYicc Support Procrtun, IST/J-Y?, M::r 98a, 
Amendment 1 



A. IMTRODUCTiaf 

I. Purpose 

This docket amends Docket M3P ^a. (approved by the Board of Directors, 
CCC, on March 3> 1971, and by the Secretary of Agriculture on 
Meurch 22, 1971) by increasing the sujiport price for manufacturing milk 
to producers during the marketing year beginning April 1, 1971 > from 
$U.66 per hundredweight to $U.93. per hundredweight. 

II. Justification 

Based on a reevaluation of the dairy situation, giving full recognition 
to increasing labor, waste disposal, and other costs on dairy farms and 
to increasing demand for cheese, it is determined that a support price 
of $U.93 per hundredweight for manufacturing milk is necessary in order 
to assure an adequate supply. 

B. AUTHORIZATICW 

I. Provisions of Program 

Subsection B I A, Level of Support , is amended by increasing the 
support price from $4.66 per hundredweight to $^+.93 per hundredweight. 

II. Subsection B I C, 1 Purchase Prices , is amended to read, as follows: 

C. Purchase Prices . 

1. Bulk Containers . Purchase prices for bulk butter in 60 
to bO pound containers, nonfat dry milk in 50 pound bags, 
and natural Cheddar cheese shall be those indicated below: 

Purchased and Purchased on 
produced before or after 
April 1, 1971 April 1, I97I 
----- Cents per lb. - - - - - 

Butter, U. S. Grade A or higher : 
Hew York, N. Y., and Jersey City 
and Newark, N. J. 70.75 68.75 

California, Alaska, and Hawaii 70.00 67-75 

Washington and Oregon 1/ 67.75 

Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Loidsiana, 
Mississippi, A3.abama, Georgia, Florida, 

and South Carolina 69.75 * 67.75 

U.S. Grade B : 2 cents per pouKd less 
than for U.S. Grade A 



7880 






FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 
UNTIL APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY 
SECURE STORAGE REQUIRED 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AORICULTURALSTABIIIZATION AND CONSERVATION SERVICE • WASHINOTON.D.'c. 20250 



DATEi 



APU 5 AH7'\ 



TO: Board of Directors, Commodity Credit Corporation 



SUBJECT: 



Availability of Funds Statement - Milk Price Support Program, 1971-72, 
MCP 98a, Amendment 1 



Gross obligations under this authorization are currently estimated at 
$510.4 million during fiscal year 1972 (consisting of purchases of 
$224.4 million of butter; $82.6 million of cheese, and $203.4 million 
of nonfat dry milk). This amount represents an increase of $124.7 
cillion over the $385.7 million reflected in the 1972 Budget Estimates. 

Net expenditures for price support and related program during fiscal 
year 1972 are expected to increase by $126.2 million over the 1972 
Budget Estimates; from $296.0 million to $422.2 million. 

It is estimated that Commodity Credit Corporation funds vill be available 
for thi&tpurpose; 




Director, Budget Division 



FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 



7881 



AFFIDAVIT 



Washington, ) 
District of Columbia) 

John W. Dale being sworn depose and says: 

I am a Senate staff member assigned to the Select Committee 
on Presidential Campaign Activities as an investigator. I 
have inspected the following summary reports filed with 
the office of the Clerk in the United States House of 
Representatives by the below indicated political committees 
and each of the reports show that no funds were received 
from loans and that no expenditures were made for loans 
during the calendar year 1972: 



Date received report 
January 31, 1973 

January 31, 1973 

January 31, 1973 



Name of Committee Attachment 

Natl. Republican 
Congressional Committee 1 

Republican National 

Finance Committee * 2 

Republican Campaign 
Committee * 3 



* Also filed with Office of the Secretary of the Senate 



I have also inspected the summary report (attachment #4) 
received on January 27, 1973, by the Office of the Secretary 
of the United States Senate filed by the National Republican 
Senatorial Committee and it shows that no funds were received 
from loans and that no expenditures were made for loans during 
the calandar year 1972. 




Subscribed and sworn to 
before me on this , 

2<^t^ day ofy^JanuwiL^ J I '^74-. 



otaty Public 



My commission expires /^/3i/'7^ 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 - 23 



7882 



K'r^irStD 6TjVT-o« HOi''5r'; Ci' ; 






CNtf'T! .:tat/-^ r;:;';:^r^ oi-' :.• 



, I ■ I -; ',-5 






;>•.;:; ^'^• -J- >/^. 







, o 








S S7f;-7rA^^'.M {;■? OV'U C-?} > >V ;'■. "'U'n.VI 



-V*i3 



'.v';^ ^j?jf «vffvr», sK'-pr?* (>i«f!s> fctif .«*r 



it ;>.!.« Pr 



-i?.^:: 









^^|5^ 



7883 



UNf|ED.STATKS HOUSE QF Re#^|^f4TAli V^^3 ' 

ru:.l'OUf OF ntXKJPM AND F.XPKNDi'fl'RKS 

roix A 

CO.MMiTrKF. 

Siri^iUTiNt"; ANV CANmOATE(S) FOR NOVISAiiOX OR t Let i :• >:i 117 iilE 
IMTKO STATES HOLSK OF RE:f-F5B:KE.VTATI\T-S 









_ Rcpiilic&a N jtloTi^l, FXnnm-a Coralttee. 
.310. ?lrat StrReC^, Southeast „.:!^. .„ . 
Va^M citoa.^ D._C.ll_ ittiOJ.! _..... .■ 



iCty. ?:iV, ZIPf..xl<') 



'iTPE 0? RETORT 

O >:.'i;H 10 Arj^rt. :--'' .... 

a Jiine 10 rcf...rt, ' ' 

Q So?Uml*r 10 report, 

Sfjarniarjr 31 repcri .:•;.,■/ 

n rift/*<:'.h i*Ar ftport J-fesl-'ifC -.— :^. I- ;_.i--.V--:-^-,electic.n oa_. .-.._1,^^ 

■ .tP-'"> r'-ry, grrrrsl, jp-ciai, rai^i:T, ^aocu^or ro?rrrnti30>^ ': ■' . _ (Date) 

Cj TtrmirJiUci: if,"' rt, ■ . • ' , . . 



VERlMi'UK'N BY OVTIC OR AniRMATlON 






'C'j 'JtjrJiLl.i/. L>^4.i^.. V_^,._, beiug dniv- s^ora. dof^v^ '-x^rr^.-) ..-.K -Ay 

> ..; ;' :.-. f'.ejic.jt cf Rt<*!;.;i a\A !L.^i«.iKJi(ures :s cutRclrfeTtaw; and cx^^'Vj -Jy/j>^ 



r-nu.! 



A D 1 9 7 T-^ 
, - . /<N"<yt»J7 PuKIit) ^ ' 

RKTIRN rOMPLKTED E ITOKT' ANX> Atf .tCH39frrrS Tfl; j 



r.vt u :, ■, . i-.i I ■,-: 



7884 






7'^ 



S« {w»»..^^i::cC•) . .:. -.-.,. ;. ;.„..V :'. '..... l..,i.. .":.:. .;.:.,.. I ( ^J-^? 



. *.■,::.. 

.. t- 





r.rt I 


K ;-,;!.':/v-5 




!V •. < 


«. ■■- . : !i..| -.^. ■,•.., S»k, 


o 




' \ i.^- ,.- i_ .... ,,,,. : 


*'* ' ' 






. 


»v-<. » 


^ v-..»:<i..^, -; 


c> 




iv—'i? ;^! CiXi;N *^'c.«."t : 


t^ 








.~S.V'i.-.. 


n -i- }.\fi^:iitr.¥<; 


c 


f"»,t *- 


C - 'i.'. ; •-^'.-^-..-irr;-. .•;■ 


i ; 




•' ■- ;':■-/-' ->-• ^'-J 


o 


."^-i 1. 


■ ♦. ;•.■'.■;.» (vivV!'. t-,-' 


c 




t I'v .• *i : ■ 


o 






to 


r,,« K 




fN 




>.. ;•.-■■:•:.:- i.':. ,:.;.' - 









.... .- - . .' . ,, i . '■::''.'', 

i. t:--'u-i\^r\f-i-^i^) .- ^^. . ..,..., ..: — r .^'^ "•^* . 

CB5trn>.i: ;fi:,£ -^i .f ,i- '^-i-^ J . ...:..„-...\. -. .. ^■.^lA'^; ^f.^:- 
A^|t.^^■.-^^^.;.•,(.v<.V..l \ iVv..). . ,.,;;.;i .. - __ . ». . ' ,•,'■.*.,' 

;^ S>-H.-vj ... _.:... , ; ,....:.,.:,......,. t' •:,-'•■.'• t 

. ?ji-^-au:>;ci^-;.t;!;:«(,..:-.-si4»ScvB> .....,;.,;.;.... ..... ; .,_. » -^!; ' '.' ~ : .'.; 

Cc >= ;;:>*/. is! :;-,*=; »v..:,^tV»r .4 4 :..:.-. ;..;...„...• — iii^V-.j..:? 






7885 



SUMMARY RKFOHT COVKRINC PKRIOO ^'U^:^^i _ 10/27 /72. TUnU — ?^1^^^^^— "- 



SIXTION A— RrCK.TTSt 



(SI33I3M^' "''■^?^ 



«. It^mtteJ (use Echci^ute A*) ' 53 7O'4.0O 

b. U„iteral:<.d....„ I"'"" "H" '! "143^2 92/2 5 v' 

Itfmfn (u« BJicJuIe B*).... . , ^^ ' 

Part 3, Loni r»f rl>-«l; 

«. Ilemiif d (tM r.-h«JuIe A') 

K UnilcMr.;.-rJ, _ _ 

Tart 4, Other r»cn>U{iTfvind«,rel>»er»,lnt«r(wV»fat,T(t 

». IUni!Enl(i:3«u>v«]a!« A*) .^J^ 

K U.,:teBike<l_........ : . ~~"" • ". .» — ^ 

"'"^■"■^VC v. * 8r-**iV:'oi£o'i,'i 10-03 

„ ^ , _ . ' Ts'-J 'tier rjfr'tij t 'i.'..' ' .' '~ ;i—- — — 

Part i. Trir,ef<ri tn: ... . ' i 

, It«,7;ix» all (i:^-, v^ 'Ju!j A')......" .._! . 284 ^ J^O . 3^1 ^2-^13 ^ y 3 66 .. 2 5 

^ SECTION B-vxrF..vt;iTiaE.si ' "^^TCTAi. Rscnw^ ^.,=^.==^-=-.. J--=-----^^ 

^ Parte CoTi.T>tinlfj!'-.M r.t^»jlji..-,rture»t \.V-"^'i" ; .^- 

tt/Tn.'tc all (•-.:) f-h<«j»jC«) ^.' ^ ■ « 

Tart T. Eiy<ivJitiir,-« f.i-ffreMuJ iwrvlMi, ijilario*, 3s..^{~,i,,.i_ ^ . . ,.^. 

•« .. ftfmUrf {oB, «>.*<!«!« D').. ^ *^ .136.901.85 

_ b. UmUia;«4 .„ " " J- -■■ 

P»rt C Vaf.»\.-^ii; -■> • - <■ . , 

o - ». nf^-irjforKi- ra,D') _: , ■ -_: _- , ^. __.:_■ 

*. iUl'-ttw! <-.;•.• khc^;!, O-. „_„. .„_ ,11,050.00 „i? 

r^ k. v«rt.:^!:ra :.„ ' * v"' 

Part 10. Trar.iftrj iH.S; '^ ; , • , , , 

w«^(^^-v=^.i,D.) _ _. ._ „„. ^Ul.Ji.fi..J55 »J-^ii^|^-°' 

*,-i StXTION C-CVSII BALIVOS. ..... • . «-..»^VOm,BF4 t -_ r^'. =^--^--^^- ? 

Cj/sJieaKisdatbfraK.-jrfrJVirt'-itrt.-rri. .. _.. __ ^_ ' 4109.005.02 

A;i«>!rtrrff;t!r.HvtW3Ax'^v<) _2;^]^ '_ "' .fS^^'^'^'^ 

--'•'»■-'■' - —■-..- ^ "„ " .W3\f>1t>.i'i 

Cs>^tn^En(la^fJw^rf^^port!^J^lcriod.._.__ _J^___ ""' j ? 2 *) ,7 8 3 V -i$ 

SF.CTION D— DEDTS AND C3LICAT10N8i 

Pirt II. rivlUar«It.(.nir=ilfcaCTrta!J«Uv«coniiiiilI« (ic.«;-.,-..-V,.-:i , .„.;, v~» 

Ps rt 12. D. b!s a.-id obi;siit!tr« 3»^-J ij, lie tsTTiralllt* (a.w a -•>i=-*^a.«yi. V^ X' ) 



7886 



ntPORT OF RECKlin-S AND EXPENDITURKS 

■; "FOR A- ,'■■■-■ :"■ ■■■ ■,•:' . 

SL'PPt>KTi,N-G ANY CA.\DlDATK(S) ' tXiR KOMINATIOS OR ELKCflON TO TilK 
, . ,^'>'11'KD STATPS 510USE OF REPHf-SENTATUES 



|; in 

W^ ■ 
o 



-^ B^El4?3rJfir^]iCAWPAlGNj:;^ TEE 



. . TvrB or RKrosT 

O fM .... - .... 



1 l^-Jl^osj^jiiL-iii^ 



B. 



e!*ctivg Ml &x;,Vi?^v,: 



CI Ter, 



'. ■■."•,>" V '^"^' *^"*f* '*'*T^" '^* '**t5< ^ r*'''<'?^'«'^-. ■ .^'-'^.t^^^^^^^^^ £? ;v 



\ V.M!HeAT!ON py OATH OB JlVViHMATlON 









that th^5 R*pL>rt ef R«cipU»»4E:tpfn.1itur»»Ucx-rn^Vt^tru«;ift4(f^xTt^^ ^ ' V^^t' -> 



^.' 






W.AtAjrt«, Wf'iiMiiJ';";"'^; 



7887 



■ S C-MMAEy BKpbKT COVK.'li.SG fJilUOO yp.vM .Or L-tv.?.? j ,. i; ;2. . THr.U . .: 






SKCl-lON A— RECiClFTSi .;' ' ' ..■,,, ' i 

'"*;»- IUiT:ir<J(ui* scVT^^Te A*) '...^ .■-:- — .:-:, ' ...».., 13 ,SCX!.OQ . 

h. U.lIljrrJifd .: I'.. 1,923.00. 

I'irt 2. Sj:-3 ar,') <'.>l!.-r'.;irj: . ... 



^ I;*.T:-.t:pJ (use !5c5i*ylule A^) — .J-.^, :.l ? ■ ^ ';-^ 

r«i-t 1. (y,\:<!l rritiy'j (HU!.ii,rv\x'.nt,',:-.\t:t.A,t'U\: ^^gg 

». rtctn;iH(Dse*.>i'-*ii!t A.') u ;■_:.:.;. . ;.. .'. ... .._.;... .. ».;..:__. ..... .. /=V;* 

'■ \ b, rn:t-n.b«l._ :...-..,._..:... ,i...... »_.!i56..03 ,. , ,:..-:#S 



<>* 








ih 


SKiio.N n-iarE.\i)i7iRESi 


CVJ 


r-.rK 


n 


:•, T VI (:>^»-^' ••■:•' CM 


t-o 






, _ , 


f-: 








o 








c-' 


rv- 


1. 


Ill 


o 






i> < 


r2 










r»rt 


> 


<XV.r. r. > I r- 


rv 






lu I rr w'faM /.>»-'>!'< • 



Tor^L F.vxKtirs »2J?,i'-J5..as._ { n7>ai.55. 



T<^al fip^t'Cts'^* for I^tt^Ja-a? w-v cr*, -* '•^ 

' f 

» .^ 

T .!• . 3 -,A. f— - » \ 






CuV. ji- "■-..''; .• '• ^'l r.irg rf rtp...rt;!-.i:;" " -^ 

Firl 1!. O V„' i^(liVis»Oto< c»»-d^thf fonimittft fateiWaJ* EO-V' r'r- :-- ' T^°^ 

r-srt 12. P V!.; J ,.!^.M!sal:^^.>.lAM«^0iroraOTflt««^Jit»c^«jJ3«K;)*iJli>^^^ — SSiE 




■ r»-i t* *-• ?-*»-'*<'J Rrj.-*, ,r ■ 



7888 



o*^ o-'^J UNITKD STATES SENATE 

^^^ ^ ^ '•'* O'^.ct of iht Stcctlirj of the StT^tt 

'^'vi^,'' RECEirrS AND KXPEX0ITURR5 REPORT ^ 

<<?V5 , OF COMMITTEES • 

*^ '^' > SUPPORTING CANDIDATE (S) FOP. XOMINATIOX OR FOP. FLECTION 
AS UNITED STATES SKNAVOR 

KajT.'of Cojiunjttcc !li*_b'^AV?5i*l-?/^PV^ySf? .-?" •'^'f.^il J<?!?'.H^i£- 

AddreM__./'45 Old Senate. Off ice'^lldini^ ^ .. ' .1_^J_: 

■ , • tfashtrgtoti. P.C^ MilO ..._ , . ].' 1 .. ! 

Attn: Mr._T*jdor_Whltonj Tte-v^'-r^r ._ ^^^ _ u.-.-.«A.«n v> .w* 

c/o The First Kjtio.ial 3 -■ k of VjsSi.-sgtoo ~ - ■ ■ 

1325 C Street. N.W. ' . 53-OH?.i38, S-0<>:000,:», } 

KEiXiJIT IDEXTiTY 
Ifj (?ee Paragraph A un'ler "Cer.cral Ir.fonrwitlcn" on ^^.e l-v:« of this pife.) 

»A (f') PerodJc report due: Marth 10 S'Jr^embcr 10 

(CT«-lt or.») June 10 \ jA-iuar>" 31 _S 

, (b) 1st rreelcctkin report due 15 days bpfore the (c) 'Id Frt-Of?ction rerert doe 5 'Hyi before the 

J General Elwli'.n c>n__ . _ . . . CeocnU ►Section orv 

■ Spe'ial FTi<cti.- n OR _. . - .. . Sr<^r:,i' fr'Xr;"'in >n 



V 



M 



Pr-i .'irv Klf^-tion 'in 

n-:r'. • KI -A, ■ .^n 



^•■J ' ' .' ■' :-• . '?o ■<: I'lH-t ri,v>rt T-r:',!n.. 

O 
O 











VERinCATION 


nv 


OVTil OR AFFIRMATION 






Sictp of 
Cojr.ty i. 


D 


str 


let Of ColuaHa 














I _ . 


Tj.i- 


r ■' 


'r.it 


■>n 


— 


— . 


_,. w:c^«l..^-.■ 


* cm. d 


-V--'!* liT:'.- 


r.) «sd My 


' 


■^ n • 












■ ' / 




.'. /: c ' -■ 


-:'<-^„^ - 


?'3'. T 


V-! I 


-1^ 


■*or 


•: :••• «••, •:rr..■c>b.■^■ 


lr~. 


'.. s 




f-r-* 


^..^.-.-.A 


'^^ i9_7A 


r-,.r.] 












>£:• 


Cre:.rr.iys:-r. Et 


•:r.» -, . 




_19/^ 



'PS^KTV.i) •iFTrt f;T AND ATTACHMF-NTS XO; 



7889 



SOCIARY F.EFC>ST COVrSING PERIOD s^.OM J^ii^Z-^JS^xll2-'i}lRV -^^^.^rr'iKiX^ A97A 



l-CTl .V V— ^ECTjrrS: 

I. !lr - :«d II*- J--.V<i J« A* 



s 3,555.f<) 










I. . .. rr.-.- • 






a. I>r.T.-i ■ .v- >->.•->- t \M 






K Vi -.^ -•■<! _.- 


o 


IVr-. « 


O-Vr n^.rp:. ire'jrdi. rrl^'. 


w 






c 


r..-: s. 


T-.--. n .j: 


c 




i^f- i- b:: .u--' ►■>,.» ;v \'i 


'>r 






r? 


SECTif 


S 3-- HirAr>lTlEf3: 


rf. 4. 


C IT.- -r -i-j ■ . -^^: £ •: 1 , -n< 


- 




I--!:.r.;« »:. ,1^ tVtrf.., C-). 


ro 


;'».-i " 


r^-T-i.r.rx-* f •.- ffrr^na; jrrt 


r^ 




. :; - i- ! lu.-» -r^--<=V t'' 


c 






c 


Tl-. n 


•- I--f~^r^ (:i^. . >^nV »•». 




Jlr S. 





_rG::_ 



;ri-err<, r*-; ; 



. . ._ .Or I S2'?.??9,>3 

... . jr,U5.oi 

'/'^^:^Xr^^^^ r 333,9S0.29 , ?.03?.93U'»9 






.'■>i.37 f 2,?0U,2;6.92 






•Knu- 



. . :-.^-;ip...;. . .0/-.;: ■.:i:js3.os 

-. c W<.^. . ! .Ji-l.^fc-^ 

;>r^\.r.^^V^^.»^ .1 ■ y " . 3^.5. Wi.8; 

o-b - ■• ■-' ■.■ • : --' i^,- r-r--.i I,:.' Ji/;: ^ ^9?, '-.:■-, '■Q 






7890 



^ V>%%ia Mi'^r.:0a QPnat 

¥X'mm%\^ii&>i vuii> Viwm '^h® iy^i^Au ^wrum m^m^nm ^m 

'i^ui ',i'/!L%'iukm% '^-^T^^in^si £s'-5£f»>--.-is^ 'i-mfti''tMra 

>>V; <U3 Ssr^^a i^^'riii^ ft^i-'MU ; 



Your /*pcn of rsctli^tJ And £^p«xv21t"raa r«» b9jr» irv:»ly«d, 4) 

r>rrl«* of th« rsj^rt lr*41c»t»» ctslajton* or ^erov* wiriich ««y.d-l bs c«v'i«jV«4 
i»/ ftd'liti'Mvtl ■ubalfaicnj •« lndl-:al«d: 

_ . , y«llur« to u«« formj pkvs.?rlb«d by this Offlog. 

(a«i'Uwalt 8#ft»te El<»ci-. Ion r-ira # _ ) 






OiAi.t! 't of •'jpportln^ ochedulffCa). 
"(Sufealt 8ch«daLe(f)__^ P»rt(B)_ 

_^>aloiilon of required fiil* on rfcelpto; 
"Part (a) , :;rf>e^ U.e(o) 



Itcm(d) 



Cffllaslon of requln^c* data on expenfllture*: 
>art(i) , Srhe.«ule(ii) 

Ite«(B) 



Other; ^^^ ^^ /^.^^,y^. t .^V f*^^ ^ /»rV.-. -^ 






Y'jyu- Initial subalaalon tmn town alcroflljwd »<<g»W H ^H»^h ■ u up yngT" 
-_»... iM — ^ — -«■«. >^.4^- J..*!.. - < <> !> ..» »> M vk HmmI Kl^ation t'aBo4H B 



7891 

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 
AFFIDAVIT 
DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA 

I, John A. Elmore, a resident of Washington, D.C., being 
duly sworn, hereby depose and say as follows: 

1. I have been a member of the Select Committee 
since April 19, 1973 to present. 

2. In the course of miy duties for the committee, 
I prepared a chart (Exhibit 1) which lists the 
serial numbers of sixty-seven 1969 series, $50 
Federal Reserve Notes, (hereafter collectively 
referred to as "the $50 bills.") and for each bill 
indicates; 1) date shipped by the Bureau of 
Engraving and Printing to the Federal Reserve agent 
of one of the Federal Reserve Banks; 2) the location 
of the recipient Federal Reserve agent; 3) date 
issued by the Federal Reserve agent to the Cash 
Division or Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank and 
4) date issued by the Branch or Cash Division of 
the Federal Reserve Bank to a Commercial Bank. 

3. Exhibit 1 was prepared from docimients procurred 
by this Committee in the following manner. 

A. Upon Committee request, Charles A. McNeils, 
attorney for E. Jake Jacobsen, furnished 
a copy of an inventory (Exhibit 2a and 2b)* 
taken by the Federal Bureau of Investiga- 
tion on November 27, 1973, which lists 
the serial numbers of Federal Reserve 
Notes contained in a safe deposit box 
belonging to Mr. Jacobsen. The serial 
numbers of "the $50 bills" (column one 

♦Exhibit 2b appears as Jacobsen exhibit 18, Book 15, page 6488. 



7892 

of Exhibit 1), vrare obtained from the above 
described llct. 

B. Upon Cornniittee requeat^ the Bureau of 
Engraving and Printing, furnished docum=^nb9,tion 
which reflects the date each of "tlie t^O bills/' 
v/ere shipped to a Federal Reserve a^ant and the 
location of the Federal Reserve Bark to vrhlch 
the agent v;?.3 assigned. 

C ."^ Upon Committee request j each Federal Reserve 
Bank involved furnished documents vrtiich reflect, 
to the extent available, the dates tiie re- 
spective $50 bills they received were issued 
to their Cash Dii/ision or Branches and the 
subsequent dates, to tlie extent avai].a.ble, 
the bills were issued by the Cash Division or 
Branches, to a Coraraercial Bank. 
4. I certify' that to the best of my knov;ledge 
the chart (Exhibit 1) accurately reflects the 
information r.s supplied by Mr. McNeils, Liio 
Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the 
various Federal Reserve Banks. 




ASl.ZL^ 



ill A. Elmore 



Sv;orn to and subscribed 
before riie, this day the 
27th day of June, in the 
year of our Lord ninteen 
hundred and seventy-four. 



Notary Public 



^fiau^ 



My ooramlssion Expires 





^ 




c 






nl 




•0 


n 




4) 









n) 




V 


Sl^ 




rt 


£ 




P 


e 




o 






u 





7893 



u .s 



c 






1 


o 




<u ' 




o 






on 




> 




••H 


^ 


^ 




•p-t 

Q 


o 

c 

n) 


0) 
0) 




ni ^^ 


rt 















■M 


«> 








U, 





a- t^ ^ 

CO ^- ■^ 

~-> O CO 

O .-H — " 



« rt 



s s 



CQ CQ 







4-t 

c 




60 


V 




t2. 


w 




>■ 


> 


< 




43 

n 
a 


nj 

W 
d 
W 


<0 

> 

u 

0) 

CO 




<S 


o 


ol ■" 

Sled 




v 





r^ 






<i 


rt 




rt 


V 


f^ 




P 


u 


(0 




M, jj 


'O 




CQ 


4) 








tM 





vD O 

CT- in 



z 

o 

H 
w 
O 

m 
o 

w 
> 

w 

CO 

w 

<; 

w 
p 
w 



a^ -H 



^ r-H (M 



— ( CO 



.-H .-H 00 



O ^ ^ 



f-( CT- 



O ^ r-l 



m cQ pq cQ 



7894 



(T) rt rt rt 



(NJ fSj r-1 ^ ~^ 

■-I -H ^ ^ CO 



(M rt rt -H 



o ^• 






2 -' S -' --^ S 



s, «- 



o ^- 



o ^- 



(M -H 



O r-< ^ 






OOUOOOUUOUOOOOU 



7895 



O- D. 





3 


J 


^ 


.1-4 


• fH 


X 


^ 


Oh 


0. 






^ 






w 






Q 






< 






►J 






s 






a< 






Pm 


r^ 


r^ 


o 








PO 


^ 


§ 


::;^ 




<: 


o 


o 


PQ 






M 






> 






Pi 






u 






CO 

w 


< 


< 


a; 


PO 


•-H 




in 


^ 


J 


vO 




< 


o 


t^ 


pj 


<M 


O 


w 


o^ 


in 


Q 


(M 


cr, 


M 


O 


O 


fc 


U 


U 



DD t) ™ 

■4-> ^ -*-* 

Pk U C^ 



O -H ^ 



O r-H -H 

r- r- r- 

in in in 

(\j ^ ^ 

-H O O 



•^ CO CO ■* ■»!< 

O rt rt r-l rt 



w w 



7896 



r4 r-l 






(4 


tS 




M 


a 




« 


o 




H 


H 


09 
<4 


d 


6 


»< 


•M 




V 


c 


'a 


H 


o 


o 




*» 


•*-» 




a 


c 


go 


< 


<: 


It 


c 


e 




It 


a 


It 


CO 


w 


Q 



o ^ •-< 



O rt -H ^ 



00 ^ r-H 

O ^ — I 



i<: » 



« « 



7897 



rt -H -H t^ 



rt «^ rt --^ 





bO 




ci 




<: 


() 




u 


o 


sy 


►J 


o 




2 




< 




« 




U^ 




Z 




< 




w 




h 


r- 


O 


in 


M 


j^ 


Z 


f<^ 


< 


o 


M 




W 




> 




tf 




U) 




CO 

W 


< 


(y, 


in 






J 


ro 


<! 


00 


tf 


r- 


w 


00 


n 


■* 


w 


o 


(:4 


J 



u u 





rt 


<« 


(4 


0) 


rt 




U 


U 


u 


u 


U 


^ 














(0 


(D 


ID 


in 


<D 




0) 


4> 


4) 


« 


Q 


^ 


4) 


V 


4) 


« 


V 



u u 



< V! 



c 


c 


c 


4) 


flj 


14 


It 


C 


M 


U 


u 


k 


U^ 


U^ 


< 


R 


C 


c 


n 


«1 


rt 


<s 




W 


to 


OT 


-1 



P0fM(V]OO.-lr-l,-<,-l,-lrt 



in — 1 vo 
in —I -H 



rt rt r- 



vO ^ ^ ■-( 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 - 24 



7898 



CO .-H ^ 






r^ _ rt — 1 



n) 


rt 


«« 




U 


O 


rt 


"rt 


- 


. 


U 


o 



— 1 ■-1 oo 






in .-1 



7899 



EXHIBIT 2a 

viNCEhta.w^LCH WEtcH S: Morgan cha«lesa.mcne 

eowARo p, MonoAN Attorneys at Law °'' ^^u^s-l 

EOWARO J STEGEMANN 300 FaRRAOUT BUILOINO 

OcflALD S ROUPKE 9OO SEVENTEENTH STREET, N. W. 

WALTER M SWEENEY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 

THOMAS M P CHRISTENSEN 

JOSEPH M MORRIS3EY AREA CODE E02 CAOue »ODRe»» 

RAYMOND J SHELESKY 296-5l5( "WAS H1.AW" 
MICHAEL S. YAROSCHUK 
WILLIAM V. MORGAN 
SAMUEL M. BRADLEY 



December 3, 1973 



Mr. Alan S. Weitz 

Senate Select Committee on 

Presidential Campaign Activities 
New Senate Office Building 
Room G308 
Washington, B. C. 20510 



Re: Jake Jacobsen 

Inventory of $10, 000. 00 



Dear Mr. Weitz: 



Enclosed, pursuant to our conversation of last week, is a 
copy of the inventory, taken, so I am informed, by the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, of the currency contained in Mr. Jacobsen's safe-deposit 
box. 

I note that the inventory reflects a total, not of $10, 000. 00, but 
of $9, 950. 00, i. e. . two hundred and fifty $20. 00 ($5, 000. 00); ninety-one 
$50. 00 ($4, 550. 00) and four $100. 00 ($400. 00). 

Mr. Jacobsen assured me today that the Bureau agents did count 
a total of $10, 000. 00. Presumably, one $50. 00 bill was overlooked in 
compiling the inventory. 



Very truly yours. 



k— — <;harles A, McNelia 
Enclosure 
cc: Jake Jacobsen, Esq. 



7900 

UNITED STATES SENATE 
SELECT COM'IITTEE ON 
PEESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 
AFFIDAVIT 

I John Goggans of 3hO& Wendell Drive, Fort Worth, Texas, 
depose and say as follows. 

Since ---- c^/- -pz^ , I have teen employed as 

a pilot for the Tandy Corporation, From Xjy-c;:'/ - / Q 
until J?/- -S"/- '} ^^ , I was employed by Associated Milk 
Producers (AMPI) to pilot their aircraft which included 
a Sabre Liner Model 60 (license number N96IR) . 

In the normal course of business myself and other 
AMPI pilots maintained daily aircraft flight reports. 
I have exanined and initialed the attached copies of the 
daily aircraft flight report (Attachment A) for the Sabre Liner, 
furnished to me by the U, S. Senate Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities. Also, I have initialed 
and attached true copies of my personal flight log (Attachment 
B) for the corresponding dates. 

To "the best of my knowledge, the attached AMPI daily 
aircraft flight reports are true and accurate records of the 
points of origination and destination for the flights imdertaken 
in the Sabre Liner for those dates. However, they may not 
reflect all intermediate stops on such flights. To the 
extend that my personal flight logs reflect intermediate 

stops for such flights, my logs are true and accurate records 
of such stops. 



7901 



For exarp.ple, on March 12, 1971 the AMPI Jaily flight 
report (includai in Abtacbjuent A) shows that the corapany 
Sabre Liner which I piloted on that day flew from ;.-:an Antonio 
to Washington co 3-=n Antonio. My personal flight log for 
o'lat particular date (included in Attachment B) indicates 
thao I piloted the iplane from San Antonio to Austin to 
V/ashington to Little F-ocli to Austin to San Antonio. ThuG_, 
on March 12 the company Sabre Lin.er flev; from San Antonio 
to Washitigfcon vrith an inteiTnediate step in Ausoiii and 
returned from Washington to S-an Antonio v;ith intermediate 
stops in Little P.cck and Austin. 

There are a couple of inlaor exceptions noted and initialled 
by ms in Che a t cachnents. 

John Goggans 










7902 



, 


AH 


E 


OF AIRPLANE ^ 


^ 


/?T-/ 


ASSOCIATED MllK PRODUCERS, INC. 

DAILY AIRCRAFT FUGKT REPORT 

MODEL J- C LICENSE NO. H 

TIME 1 TACHTIMC IrLTIKC 


y/ 


z/' 


DATE 


3/.- 


-> / y 


t 


1. 


S.-'T" 


pen 


= 


= = 


■i'-ff- ( ' 


i-7/,5 


HRS. 


/5^ 




Jl^CN*^ 


p. tK». 


L'sSSL 


= 


2. 


/■■/; 


r, /-y y 






<v/.'. 


J'i'?.''' 


t> 














3. 




























4. 




























5. 




























6. 


\ 


— i 
























L 


ISl P_ 


ISSENGERS AND "X" FLIGHTS MADE DAILY TOTALS 


/ 


'7 












r 






7^ 


.2 
S 


3 
6 






TIME - HOURS AND TENTHS OF HOURS 


« 


5 


' 




T 


2 
5 


3 

e 




...CR.r, 


.e„EHC. 


P..HTt^ 


.«. 


■ ^Tc" 


7 

!_.: 


5 


6~ 
3 

6 

3 




T 


2 

S 


3 

6 




Tll/E BROUGHT 
FORWARD 


?V>', 


•.^•■i'^ 


?/V^< <■ 










2 


3 




TODAVS TIME 


(■■'P\ 


/ y 


v.-/ 






r 


5 


6 

3 










TOTAL TIME 


'^JS-J L 




? <^ i/ . IJ 






1 ^~ 








4 


S 


L? 




1 
























' 


/ 













IHSTRUMEMT: 



OMNI CHECK: NO. 1 






ASSOCIATED MILK PilODUCERS. INC. 

DAILY AiriCnAFT FLIGHT TJEfOUT 



MAKE < 


3F AIRPLANE 


■/' 






/ 




MODEL 


c 




LICL 


NSe NO. M ''V //>' DATE 




' / 


/;- / , 


7/ 














FLtCMT 


f ,-'/ 


"■^ "potNT'or 


"tTm 


E " 


=^Fpf^ 


'^I^LtT-: 


T.'"o« 


OIL T« 


KCM CN 


?uo" 


PASS. 


NO. 


A 


nRlVAL 


DCTARTDHC 


Af<niVAL 


L. CN8. 


«. ENO. 


MICES 


1. 

2. 
3. 
4. 
5. 


/ r 






.".'/, >■ 


.-■/.-' -> 


1 


f' 




















































































































6. 




























LIST P 


ASEENGERS AND 


"X" FLIGHTS MADE DAILY TOTALS 


1 


r'f- 












1 


2 


3 




1 


2 


3 






TIME - HOURS AND TENTHS OF HOURS 


4 


S 
2 


6 
3 




S 


6 


1 






2 


3 




AIRCRAFT 


LEFTCNC. 




OIL CBA«£ 


stMce 


4 


S 


G 




S 


6 


1IIS*CCT<; 


1 


"s 


3_ 
6 






2 


3 




TIUE BROUGHT 


? 7f. .T 


?7(.< 


77/, ^ 






4 




S 


6 




1 


_2_ 

"s 


3 






2 


3 




TODAY'S TIME 


/-r 


i.c 


A^' 






4 




S 


fi 




1 


2 


3 








2 


3 
















_4_ 


5 


6 




5 


6 












-_...- 


L 


'''■ - 


'J 


%-t 


''i • * 1 


7/-'- 


' 1 


1 








HSTRUMENT: 



OMNI CHECK! NO. I 



^^ i/M 



Me 



/<; .- /- 



/.'•/■6 



7903 



ASSOCIATED liM.K PSOOUCEflS, INC. 
^ DMI.V AiaCHA?r rLIGlir BEPOar 
-E OF AlflVI-AMg '^ /' ' KS ^ '/J' <■ MODEL j- ^' LICEMS!; MO. M VL- .' '' OATE "? ~ / \' ' / ' 




ASSOCIAFCO /.'.(IK PKODUCtKS, IMC. ,/' 

DAlur AinCKAfT FCIGKr rtport 
AI.-l^LAHc.,V/iVv''.",'l7.Iy- j^'^-'•"'^°^■l- t'f/- LlCKNf.E MO. M ^/<^- / /\ DATE V ~ - ^.^' ~ <^ / 



i\:;7~^ 






•c 



i'^.5 






;.>/y. 



SEMGKRS AMO "X" FLIGHTS MADE 
if "' 



DAILY TOTALS 



vr, 



■ -JlXJ 

IHSTKUWeMT: 



TOOIT'S TIME 



•7, 



^ 



<<■ 



^ni 






6.^ 



^Ali 



1 TIME - nouns AND rCNTHo Of HOURS 



i/C Si- 



TOTAL TiMe !;<> y I.7V/, 4.h?j:/.j:^ 



//r_s: 



iiL^ 



OMNI CHECK! NO. I 



HCHARKi: 



L^yZJ,,^^ 



7904 



<E OF AIRPLANE 



ASSOCIATCD MILK Fr.ODUCERS, INC. 

DA.ILY AIRCRAFT FLIGHT REPORT 
hr\, "rMODEL / C LICENSE NO. H d f- I V DATE ? - 7-^ / ' 



FUICMI 


DEJ^VrSne 


POINT OF 




TIME 


T.CH TIME 


fLTI'-C 


TlW 


t 


T««"c» 


'"oil 1* 


rtn 


0. 


[rLo"~ 


f-**S 


NO. 


ARRIVAL 


Ot>ARTURE 


ARRIVAL 




IM 


MRS. , 


L. ERC. R. CI^G. 


wfUES 


1. 


Vc f) 


^CC 






'iy>,( 


'■"^\ 




7, 








■/-^F 


/ / ' 


2. 
















' 












3. 




























4. 




























5. 




























6. 






















— = 


-— 




LIST PASSENGERS AND "X" FLIGHTS MADE DAILY TOTALS 


(■ 


■3 










2 

5 


.3^ 
6 






2 


3 












s 


6 




T 


2 
S 


3j 
6 




V 


2 

s' 


3 
6 




A,»C«.FT 




„<=.TE.C. 


oil1"«h 


i.'^t:- : 




_3_ 






2 


3 




TIME BPOUCHT 
FOR«*RO 


^■o.^. 


■ y'.f. 


J-.- s /■ 










5 


6 




T 


2 


3 
£ 




V 


2_ 


_3 
6 
3 
6 




TOD^Y-S TIME 


/• i 


1 -T 









^. 


2 

S 


3 




V 


2 

5 




TOTAL TIME ? <; . 


( • 





MSXnUMt^lT 






f-. K.i-jc* — —^—r—-'— — — *- 



_^c_j:^ 



ASSOCIATrO MILK P.RODUCERS. INC. 

DAILY AIRCRAFT FUGHT REPORT 
. MAKE OF AIRPLANE $ ^'"y/- '/ /\i'r P MODEL /. f" LICENSE NO. H // / / DATE "' ^-- '/■ ' ~7 '' 






5. 

LIST PASSENGERS AND "X" FLIGHTS MADE 

Trirl" 






.ruR. L _.i.Riv*iJ„o.u._J 



■ms 



^■■fr, <, -y 'r li 



iVv f 



DAILY TOTALS 



< , s ;s 

xjira — 

« 1 s i bI 

ri2 3j— 



TODAY'S TIME 
TOTAL TIME 



^Gi 



7^ 



// ;. 7 



ZiZ 



/;•' 



:: 



TIME - HOURS AND TENTHS OF HOURS 



-.■* / ' 



■/./ 



^^ 



i^i'X 



:|r!: 






_A.-^ J - ;'/. ^^^ 



7905 



ASSOCIATED MIIK PRODUCERS, INC. 
DAILY AiHcnAFT FUCKT ncponr 



«C OF »1HPL*NE_. 



*^» r ' ,- f V- MOOEL /^ < "' LICENSE NO. N //' r. DATE /• '^ ' J_' 



1. 

7.' 

- ■ ' 

i. 


'/'f 


"'.r.'vrj 


.„.„„',"' 


L ....»»t~ 


•WT 


r'^^ — 


rin.t 


';' 


i] 


=^" 


>:jk 


r-' 


^ 


F^o". 


j;:j 


,^i.sr 






:-■,'-'..'/ 


r^vy 


<^ 




/<. *' 




/./ V^ 


5^T 










>"f/y 


y-.'V.i 


z 


T 








nth 










































































































J.11T P 


tSSENCERS ANO "X" FLIGHTS MADE DAILY TOTALS 


> 


1 












jT'T^ 




7 


2^ 
5 


» 






TIME - HOURS ANO TENTHS OF HOURS 








2 


3 




AIRCRAFT 


ueFTc-«. 


., = HT«.. 


.ll'"".C 


9'«C 


4 > • 




S 


S 


l.:>t; 


-' . '-1-1. 




V 


s 


3 
• 




TIME BROUGHT 

ronvARD 


.c.'^.^.-: / 


r<^i:/ 


-^^-^^z 






V-iTf 






2 


1 




TODAY'S TIME 


/T./ 


f./ 


s". ; 










» 


6 




1 III 






2 


3 










-% 






jLi» »-• 






liJ 


[»J 


^ 


L 








Li 


Si/i-j 


^»<; ;i -r <t; 


iJ 




__[ 


=^^^. 



IHSTWUMEHT: 



OMNICHCCK: MO. I 



-l-^ 'liTTiXaT 



^/< ^.^^ 



S 



^<>g^'/?A/'S 



A5SOCIATE0 f.'.ILK PRCDUCEitS, INC. 
DAILY Air:cnAt-T FUGHT REPORT 











/ -• 




LICENSE NO 


H 






' '(' 


DATE 


A 


^ - 


ckiL-_2/. 




.™,.^ j-_^„-^„. -( J, 


„,.-.-„„- 




— fxrs 


-?^5?- 


- 


'^r-y^ 


-^'" 


rsivi" 


Ii\;-_1 


-v":v.y ■•• 


\. 






^^-^^ri-V=°=^. 


^^ 


f"^"^ 


=L"= 


i 


~- -■ 


_-_. 




•^" ^- 




1 






- ■.. ••; 


















3. 


^fAJ/ 


/r9M ^-^ 










,' 














4. 


^r?^j^ 


^. ;7~ 








.-. - 




' 












5. 


<^^"r 
























4. 




























ST p 


A5tE..GERS AND"X" FLIGHTS MADE 


DAILY TOTALS 




1 












rf ' J ■ ■ 


rin 


i i 








>i 


J ^1 










^:".X^;^ 






5 S 




.,»C,AFT 




.,«,E... 


..I 




\ 


'I' 
5 S 
? .3 
S V 


- 




TllIE OIOU 
FOnWARO 


C^HT 








1 


— 




"i' 




1 


OOAY-S T 


HE 


— --— 










• 3 : 






OIAL TIM 


E 


__.i;J 


, -«=^=- 


-_,= 


.----^ 


... I 



OMMI ClieCK: NO. I 



-^^ 



7906 



ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS, INC. 

DAILY AIRCRAFT FUGHT REPORT 





:■= 


3F AIRPLANE '^/l 7^ P- (Z 


_ 


MODEL^f'/.- ^ 


z 


LICENSE NO 


N ^7/^/^ 


DATE 


/V^/p^'/z7 




1. 


oeS'.VtSre 


.RmlTL 


DO'.l.TU.c'^ 


««»1V»1 


Ii£i 


niv — 


""jiir i"i». 


t.'ho. 




r^owl 


mI'eV 




^^feK 








//Of 


\U.7 


p 


/ 


^72 






A/7-; 


5:v/.v 


■ 


2. 






























3. 






























4. 


























1 




5. 




























: 


6. 




























-iST P 


ASSENGERS AND "X" FLIGHTS MAOE DAILY TOTALS 


2 


/, 


<?7?'- 






/vr 


y-;/^ 




r r'AY 


T 


T] 


[T] 






















\ 


2 
S 


3 

6 




AIRCRAFT 


LE.TE.C. 


R,CH,£«. 


oil""!,. 


i.wi'c'c. 






-\ 


_2 
1 


^ 




TIME DBOUCHT. 
rORWARO 


///■■/ 


///./ 


//A/ 




1 
i 






^ 


"s 


3 




TODAVS TIME 


27 


7/^ 


7 Y- 




1 


-*."}I«r 




^ 


2^ 

S 


_3 
6 




TOTAL TIME 


///• ? 


//,<'. 7 


//7,7 




1 


1 "* - 

i • ' . I 

( ' ' ' 
1 


INSTRUMEMT: NICMT: OMHt CHECK: NO. I MO. 2 | 


U: 


- 


1 


L.^,-i^/^ 






(^^ /1N7F^ aI ftifi;.! 


















2.0 PILOT 


















1 



p 



7907 



^ 


^>^ . 


^- v^.... 


7''^ 


r/^^; 


^/y<? 


'■ 










AIRCRAFT 


Flicjhl 
No. 


1 

1 From 


To 


D„ra. 


Pilot In 




Da, 


- 


-, / Ident. Cjlegory 

No. 


Type 1 CU» 


of Trip 


mand 


Night 


1 


j?^(<,',Ti'ir-w r 


7,-,-/. l''{i/ ] ")'//!» '.' 




/ or 


'•7<r.//-' jj-i^r.... 


AJ ^.-^t Ttr 


\S^T^Jjr_ 


-j^A r 


■^ ? 




2- ■? ! 7 7 


c- 1 




5-/ 










;^r.i.!-r- 


Dr_«9 


3 r 






, _ 






J--/ 


" 






' 




il-_;3 f i3 


^.*^ 










7-7- 










£^^. J^ l*>-^.<.v ■. 










.Z^ 










•!.**».'/'A'y i 


^^r- 






, ^ 


1 


'.^ 


'•6_ 








'■ 




5^ -r 


.^CJ.S 


/ f 




/£_ 


/Xi /A 


' 


i<i_j 






" 






/^!.< E 


r.ir,:r- 


/. c 






/ <.- i "- 




s,/^ 




" 


■' 






e^'se 


^^r.-:n,. <; 


/ c> 




/■ r9 


'r 






?■ i- 












^^•/m /«..^.- 


^^. •..-'• p^ 














'^■7 .. 


,. 












_j>?z: 


/«? 






/ i> 






.'■<?'' 












•^ '1 r 




X. 4^ 






/" ■^ 






7- 7 




























7.-r 












/>•.,'_» / 


i r^. 






/r<.j 








7 - 7 


-' 


" 








y/-/- 


Ci i 


/. < 






/ r 






7- 5 












i^i- s 




(?. 7 




^. 7 








:•/? 






■' 






s/!r- ew^ 


- O/'./O 


' c7 




7 -7 








Total Time to 0)le . 


•73.^ ^^^^ r 


53:;-.;, '-''^' >-'i//'-T 7..' 


rfff^ 
























Carry 


Totals f 


orward 









c^/^ 


^9d 






"^ 


> 


INSTRUMENT 


Dual Instruction 


Croji 
Country 


Solo 


REMARKS 
(Instructor CertHic itlon. Maneuvers, Damage to Aircraft, eld 




Actual 


Hood 


Link 


Check 

L.Recjl, 


Given 


R.c'd 




a: !=■ 1 


r?.-7 


IS- 




in U.I 


/; ,. 1 


/;?? V 


















2.T 




/3/«/-,yj^' 
















7- .V 




I7fc I 




J --? 












^V 








,- -J" 












Z i: 




















?..,- 




















/■r^ 




/7/f-/-A 
















/ r 








C?? 












re? 




-■ 




,7'/ 












Z. ! 


1 


.. 
















/.<? 




.■ 
















^.•'' 








.-> 7 












«7.-7 








r- <r 












/■•P 




















/. r 








;T-^ 












C-.7 




















^.- 




G^/y. 


>;t±^. 


S7C3 


/r 




flU.i 


//■■../_ 


/J75.C 




The Record on this Pajt is Certified Cotred 
Pilot's Slgnatur.^-/V^ .-(^■^-.^^--^^ J 


to Top of Next Page 



ll\ 



7908 



^ 




^/^ i*^ 






















Date 
197^ 


AIRCRAFT 


Flight 
No. 


From 


To 


Dura- 
tion 
of Trip 


Com " Co.PiloJ fi'o' 


Day 


Night 


Iden*. 
No. 


Category 


Type 


Class 


mar<d 


Time 






I?,-?-:; .? 


//fi^r W ? 


/J?v i? 


«5-7.? 


rv " 


r-/z- 


/vf/-//? 


ffp Xtr 


A? 


iiti -ser 




Oi. P, 


^,T^^^ 


/ s- 


i;' r 


.■'.■? 


/ 7 




7-/^, 












/. / r- ■ fie s- ■:; *-' -^ 


Af 




/-^ 


^^ 




/.J 


? fL 




1 




" 




C/;' r-.'-/Ji,' - K/}-^ 


1 c 




'/s-^ 


/< 


/C 




/-/? 






•' 


" 




5^r- n/. ;- <:^ r- 


/7 




/7 


/. 7 


11 












" 




iA -r 




/ ; 




^^ 


/.? 












'■ 






SH T 


DC./^ 


/. o 




.7. c 


^■C7 


2 ": 




?-?.<? 












P^./=> 


O TC-r 


.-"^■sr 




-. r 


r f 


zs 




S-?. ? 




'■ 








^r^-,- J^r., 


5 - ?W -. 


-?; J 






P T 


p <-> 




?- ?,-i 












5f^ r 


X O ^. X? / 


/. r? 




— — 


/ ^? 


















■:,a r- ^y- 


/^.^ ^...1 






.•'. s- 


,?.«- 


z s- 




<"^ ;• 




'' 












^.,? 




cT. Sr" 


r-,« 


r-. < 






/' 






■ 






Z>^ ^ 


/.'< 




/fT 


/ S 


/ / 




V-7 7 




" 








Or. /= 


/..-n 


/■a 




/f?' 


/.^ 




f^ 


S-?:s 












/,-.r^ 


nc^o 


/ V- 




/«^ 


/" 




/-'t 


X 


1 


' 










/■'<:-/=' 




/.<r 




/< 


/ S' 






A 












-T/'X 


Of.o 


A< 




/Si' 


/.c 




' iT 


\ 


Total Time to Date 


'/2,-.f- 




// /7 ^.; 


^^^ ^ 




^4 
















Carry Totali Forward 



! .^^ .^^ 


















INSTRUI^ENT 


Dual Ins 


truction 


Cross 
Counlry 


Solo 


REMARKS 
1 Instructor Certification, Maneuvers. Di 


ma^e to Aircraft. 




Actual 


Hood 


Lir>k 


Check 
Rec'd 


Given 


Rec-d 




ff/'.S 


^' ^ 


/ r 




l^l/„. 1 


/?(■ 1 


/}ZJ.S 






' r-^ 












7. r 




Gii-L 


< a.< 












/•!? 


















/. r 




/;/.>?', /uA/ 


i 












/.7 




HFi-L^ 


5 


/.I 








/.? 








^ ^ ^ 












7C 




/?^^^ .<?/^^-r:-.^. 


! 












?.. r 




n /t^^ rn'^r 














p J 




Ol^^/:,^- 




/ a 














rr/;, L 






f 












p:.' 




r:,^..^^.-, 






V 7 
















,-7/..-,./o^. 


f r7 'Z 












/ s' 




/r/^-,./,.. 














/(=? 






^ 












// 


















/ S' 






f 


















to Top c 


/.,-. 7. 
i Ne«t 


/ ST 
Page 




'f-l(>±. 


/r7.-/^?''7,T 




The Record on this P^e is Cer 
Pilot's Signature;^ _,7y ,.<^^i,f. 


tified Correct 






7909 



M __.^_.iL^ 



111""'' 



AIRCRAFT 



Pilot In! 
Com- 'Co-?. 



j-y. -rl " r. 



II |:;.ic^ ! •; 1. 



I PJo, I „ 

i^±^ a/«^>. ^1 : . 




7910 









^^ ^^^ 


















Date 
9 7/ 


AIRCRAFT 


Flight 
No. 


Frcm 


To 


Dura- Pilot in 

tlon ! Com- 

of Trip mand 


Co-Pilot f"''"' 


Day 


Nl, 


Ident. 


Category 


Type 


Class 




m*Z. 


-c. 


r,/.----' /f-<,l ■ 


"<?/- / 


Ill- ' 


/ :-^ ■. 


?''V 


^-l-^ 


/V^///' 


IrO.r-/; r 




LMS^.r^T 




C<: ^- J7;«,. Axs f:.:.j-r 


2 . 5' 


,'2' 


?.< 


7 -■■) 




^ 7^2- 












';r/?V,-/v^-. ^ 


r- Sr^-r 


;;.s' 






p.£ 


PS' 




^-z2 






-' 






<;^r -//.^/ 


- s/j r 


/. h 




/s"' 


/^" 


/ Z^ 




■ , -/..^ 


/r 


' 








iy:'r ■ j-iyi- 


- fx'r 


/s- 




/S' 


/< 


r< 


■i.<2^ 


'■ 










S^r 


^CXL :^ L- 


/ ? 






/.J 


S3 




■'■n 








" 




TX'r-^/r 


- Vc. fi 


?< 




J ^T 


•J / 


?< 




•^-^<? 


■' 






" 




,0^/9- //■ 


- -^fir 


V- fO 




V c 


¥.n 


7.:p 




r T 


/!• '''i, 7 "^ 


/^ifU'^t.l 


,-..'cv 


/lAt (! 




<:-^r- /?.,^- ^wr 


'.C' 




/.,o 


/■^ 


/ o 






/■ -^c?.^ 


•■.T:--rh r 


/v /3 E 6 i' 


.-«..'/. J- ;-r 




S/?r./-.-s^- I-Z.5- ^■/^r 


■^ s- 






3.0 




^ 


Z'- ^ 


^ i'i-?/^ 










S^T 


Xl, *3/ 


P.a 






P tr> 






r-r 


^^i-7/i' 


,' 








r^7- /./Cn- D, 


..^^^ i.ii>-i^ 


■ ¥.$ 




^'i' 


t.-i 


Uc 




■■- f' 


/>9^X 










^^r 


A.isi.,^1- 


/..-> 






/.r? 






' e> 


'^■'^'Sl/f 










iCr^ n/:i.t^;i--(-(3>'.-o,UJr 


«'. / 




'/. I 


V. / 


z^- 


,5" 


7 ^Z 


^ Cl''^ /■' 






, 




5^- - 


f^.nr-rf 


^'' ■^ 












,•2. 


^<r ;-■ -x^- 










.f^ —- 7<r- 


- 1A -^' 






S^' 


7.C. 








'.^ i"->- 






■' 




^'>c - / T-.-' 


■ '^'-:^ 






r'.c^ 


.'- „ 






Total Time to Date 


r. ;•,•:-/ 


'/o . 


/,-, •■ r. 


'/T -' ' 


ini.-^ 


.^^d 


















Carry Totals Forw 



7911 




j Cdrry ToliU forward 



'^^V 





<:^^- j^;%^ 












INSTaUMENT 1 OujI loitrg'.lljn 


Croit 

Country 


I REMARKS 


Aclua' j Hood 


Lm'. 




Gl/..^ 


J--J 






f^%.) ■f,'-..') 


/ r 






i/ror3 


r 


o<\ 








7.. ii 


rftc 












S.I 


I Hil'^T.T^' 


*0< 










2 sr 




" 


<»• V 










J. 1 




•• 












^1 




<?/-^<_ 


k 1 










^ J 




y^j^y I 


%.A 








^v7 


1 J 


Myfr J 


't i 










r.o 






■^.T i 










j;' p 




AV^.--^t> — ^ 


19! 










A '7 




A V« / f 


%^\ 










/. r 






»■/. ^ , 










rr 




Jirr'^ys y^yrr£.. --r ^->cv — ^ r . o -J 


**..^ 












r-^"^ 






« 










"^ 


£>' '' 




^.^^ r,.,. 


f 












&:s 






Lr 












z c 






*^.7 /..- 


, ^ 






/,?7 7|o''<fr^ff! 


The «;coH on thli P«9e .> C-;rt;(iH Corr?.;* 























7912 





^/^ ^i^ 






















Dale 

19-' 


AIRCRAFT 


Flight 
No. 


From 


To 


Dura. 

tlon 

of Trip 


Pilot in 
Com- 
mand 


Co-PiloJ ''''°* 


Day 


NIghl 


Ident. 
No. 


Category 


Type 


Cla« 




Time 




Ij^ i 


/?.,-' 1 


;■'- A 




Tr//:- - . ■ 


'?-, 


/■7i'r 




/I. *•/..£- 


/-•i . 




l-L(^ 


S'^ 


2 '^ 


^ „ 






/ J i .: 


v.r 












i r ,. ■. 


I'L-i. 


< -^ 


-t^T 






■'■" i 


f •/i' 






' 








f;-.<i 




,, .;■ 






s- •. 1 


f-.jr 






' 






A-.. ; 


?^ - 


^/ 


J-? 






-7. 7 i 




,,''/CZ/ 


ff-^r^,^ 


/vy?, / 








y.a 




j-c 




' c' 


?-!-r 


Y'fri',^ y 












3. rj 










^-2^ 




:r/'r 


/i.*2Z-C 






r^^- ^-/■r-K 


- s^-^ 




-^. r 


.?«- 




V- ^! 


^rr f* 


^' ^t/i^ 












£.^ 


J ir- 


3.y 






7. J 


/^ .<; 




^' '^v -t; 


AWi T 


" 




^^ i-JX.^.,Cr^ ■!- Syf 7- 


S V 




s.f- 




3:.y 




jj-^/ 




j-f-r 


/Vfl2/:Sr 


■' 








9 , 


/yi 


y.- 




1. 1 


















'•'J 




<•'=.■ 










n fL-l'C 


„ 


,■ 








.... 


x^ 


^ / 




^^ 


^^ 


^.7-? 


nyC-z'f 












-<» 


z'f 




^f 






^«..- 


, 


■ 






S^^T ■ r,j i^J - $^:y- 


v<7 


^. / 






f a 






^-t,.,- 










S^r. 5^<r 


fii^^n -r-O 


V. V 




V V 




*< :? 




r/- /-z 


-^.z^- 










/K-T,«..,T 


$^ 7- 


•7?? 




:r s 




7^ 




Total Time to Date 


:.>-'2-J/7.,..^ 


Sf^Hi! 


►y^V »;' ?t ^.7 




















Carry Totals 


For-ard 



7913 



Austin, Texas 
January 28, 1974 



United States Senate 
Select Committee on 

Presidential Campaign Activities 
Washington, D. C. 20510 



The attached records reveal that telephone number 512-476-2544 
is the working residence service for Jake Jacobsen, 2305 Sunny 
Slope, Austin, Texas, 78703. 

In addition, these records indicate that this service has been 
continuously working from November 13, 1970, to the present time, 
This covers the period of time requested by your committee. 

The above statement is true and correct to the best of my 
knowledge . 




(signed) W. A. Hamilton 



Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of January , 1974. 



Notary Public ^ 

Travis County, Texa^ 



30-337 O - 74 - pi. 17 - 25 



7914 



EXCHANGE 



OROER NO 



CR 

TELEPHONE NO DATE 



C 8452S I 476 2544 



FORM 
S-91071 
REV. l9-62) 



AU3-C 
(D) 



PG 2 



TTR 

9CMQX 
3SMYX 

EXTSP 



SE&R IN: 



l]\J 



1 75 

5 50 

NC 

NC 

65 

1 25 

I 25 



EXT-fcP dv/T^ 
EXTBG ^^ 

SE&R OUT: 

1 FRLW 
EXTS? 
EXTYP 
EXTEP 



TT5" 
1 25 

— WT 



Vk^ 



EXTQ^ 
BEC 
5 FLU 
9CMaX 
3SMYX 



^ 



-5~ '^ ('>-■. h> 



f>) 





THE END 




' 










TEL NO. 








ISSUED BY CHECKED BY Xy^ \ pATE COMPL 




DATE 


OTHER ORDER INFORMATION 












































-J 



7915 



CR 



CxrHANQE ORDER NO. 



TCLCRMONC NO DATE 



FORM 
S-9107.t 
, DUE REV (9-621 



AUS-C 
(D) 



C 8 452S t- 



476 2544 



111 \1 70 



III 13AMX 



JACOBStN JAKEy .- 
2305 SUNiW SLOPE (03) 



SEE ATT 



DK3 



SEE ATT 



n\^: 



'^viiy 



2 CC 
7311 BW 



^^ , ^ ^, 



ISSUED BY 



CHECKED BY 



.^-^ 



DATE COMPL 



OTHER ORDER INFORMATION 



ih/^'^ 



/^b^- 7;r"7A c^-s -7; 






7916 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 



RALPH NADER, et al. , 

Plaintiffs, 
▼. 

EARL L. BUTZ, et. al., 

Def endents . 



Civil Action No. 1U8-72 



A FFIDAVIT 



STATE OF MISSOURI ) 
CITY OF ST. LOUIS ) 



FILED 

MAR 13 1972 
JAMES LDAVEy^cierK 



I, Clifford M. Hardin, being duly sworn, hereby depose and say 
as follows: 

1. I am a Vice-Chairroan of the Board of Ralston Purina Compai.y, 
St. Louis, Missouri. From January 21, 1969 until November 17, 197.L, 
I was the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States. As such, I 
had ultimate responsibility for the determination of dairy price support 
levels fop the marketing ye.u? 1971-1972 under the applicable statutes. 

2. Section 201 of the Agricultural Act of 19U9, as amended 

(7 U.S.C. 1446), authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agricullure to 
make available price support to producers of milk "at such level not in 
excess of 90 per centum nor less than 75 per centum of the parity price 
therefor as the Secretary determines necessary in order to assure an 
adequate supply." Section W6 of the Agricultural Act of 19^9, as 
amended, requii>e5 the Secretazy "insofar as practicable" to announce 
the level of support for mLUc "in advance of the marketing year or season" 
(7 U.S.C. 1426). rhe level of support so announced may not be reduced. 
In addition, the purposes of Section 204(a) of the Agricultural Act of 
1954 include, among other things, to assure adeqxiate supplies of milk 
and dairy products; encourage development of efficient production units 



7917 



as well as "stabilize the economy of dairy farmers at a level which will 
provide a fair return for their labor and investment when compared with 
the cost of things that farmers buy." (7U.S.C. lU46b). 

3. On March 12, 1971, an annoxincement was issued at my direction 
advising the public of ray determination to support the price of milk at 
$4.66 per cwt. for the year April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972. This was 
the same level as was in effect for the previous year. The complex 
economic factors which enter into a decision such as this are, of course, 
not subject to any one interpretation. Indeed, based on the information 
cind advice that I was receiving, a number of determinations, including 
one to raise the support level to $U.93 per cwt., would have been 
justified at this time. The initial determination of the level of price 
support for milk as announced on March 12, 1971 was the subject of 
major controversy even before it was made. Nevertheless, on balance I 
determined for the reasons stated in C.C.C. Docket MCP 98a to set •'.he 
support level at $t.66 per cwt. 

•». At the time of the March 12, 1971 announcement of the price 
support level, I was aware of substantial Congressional sentiment in 
favor of a higher figure. Subsequent to the announcement of the i.it.66 
per cwt. price support on March 12, 1971, such sentiment increas'sd notably. 
A number of bills were introduced in both the Senate and the House which 
would have increased the support level on a mandatory basis to as much 
eis $5.00 per cwt. In addition, certain representatives of the dcL.ry 
industry strongly urged that the price support determination be r« vised, 
pointing to increase in daiiy production costs during the preceding 12 
months. For example, at a meeting with the President on March 23, 1971, 
various representatives of the industry urged an increase in the price 
supj>ort level citing again the factor of increased costs to farmers. 

5. The existence of such sentiment on the part of many members of 
Congress and wide segments of the dairy industry led me to inquire as to 



7918 



whether sufficient weight had been given to those factors which we had 
been aware of at the time of the March 12, 1971 announcement and which 
would have supported a decision to establish the price support at a 
higher level. 

6. The meeting between representatives of the dairy industry. and 
the President, inferred to in paragraph U above, resulted from an 
invitation extended by the President in September, 1970, at a time when 
I addressed a meeting of some 25,000 members of a milk producers 
organization in Chicago, The arrangements which I made for key leaders 
of the dairy industry to meet with the President were made in January, 
1971, and the March 23, 1971 date was fixed by the White House on 
February 25, 1971. At the meeting, to the best of my recollection, 
the President made certain brief remarks to the group and a spokesmaa 
for the group made a presentation urging an increase in the price si pport 
level. 

7. In light of the considerations noted in paragraphs U and 5 above, 
I reevaluated the price support level announced on March 12, 1971 co the 
basis of the reqtiirements of 7 U.S.C. 1446, with an increased focus on 
the factors described in C.C.C. Docket MCP 98a, Amendment 1. Among, other 
things, feed costs had shown a noticeable rise throughout the yeaj*. 

In addition, there was some indication that the producers were considering 
action, based on recent legislation, which would have had the effe:;t of 
reducing the overauLl supply of milk. One other factor to which our 
attention was directed was the fact that an increased supply of chesse 
was needed to meet obligations under other programs and a higher 
si^port price would tend to insure an adequate supply for these purposes 
Such a reevaluation was not novel. Price support determinations for 
particular marketing years had been increased in the past. 

8. During the course of reevaluating the evidence, I had discussions 



7919 



and advice from members of my staff, including Under Secretary Campbell, 
Assistant Secretary Lyng, and Assistant Secretary Palniby. 

9. On March 25, 1971, this reevaluation of evidence pertinent to 
the dairy situation, on the basis of the criteria in 7 U.S.C. 1UH6, 
culminated in an announcement, issued at my direction, that the price 
support level for the marketing year 1971-1972 would be established at 
$t.93 per cwt. 

10. The decision to set the price support level at $U.93 per cwt. 
was based entirely on a reconsideration of the evidence on the basis of 
the statutory criteria. 

11. Neither the decision to reevaluate the $4.66 per cwt. support 
price level nor the ultimate decision to establish the price support 
level at $U.93 per cwt. was based on any consideration other than those 
outlined in this affidavit. Specifically, at no time did any person or 
organization promise or lead me to believe that funds of any kind cr 
anything of value would be paid to me or any other person or organ:. za Lion 
in return for a reevaJ-uation of, or increase in, the price sxipport level. 

12. Being cognizant of the views of Congress, as well as the 

views of the dairy industry and other industries affected by our p-'ograms , 
ifith respect to the administration of statutes relating to Agricultxire, 
is, of course, a fundamental part of the Secretary's role. 




'^k T^-^ 



Clifford fw. Hardin 



Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of March, 1972 



Notary P 
I 
State of Missouri 

City of St. Louis ^^ performed In the City of St lonti, 

which idjolns the County of St IJMiis. 

My commission expires : My Commission Expires i»nu»iy 2. 1973. 




7920 



UNITED STATES SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 



STATE OF OKLAHOMA ) 

) SS: AFFIDAVIT 

OKLAHOMA COUNTY ) 



I, JANE S. HART, being duly sworn, hereby depose and 
say that I make this statement in accordance with my own mem- 
ory and best recollection as of the date of this Affidavit. 

1. That I started to work for Stuart H.Russell in 
1958 as a secretary. I have been continually employed, and 
I am now a general paralegal assistant. During the time 
1969 through 1972, on my own, I sent out the checks to pay 
bills, prepared billing statements, and made the bank depo- 
sits. I handled most of the office work of a routine nature, 
since Mr. Russell was away a great deal of the time travelling. 
When Mr. Russell was away from the office for a protracted per- 
iod of time, he would leave several blank signed checks. I 

am authorized to sign on Mr. Russell's special checking account, 
and in 1972 (when the professional corporation was organized) 
I was authorized to sign checks on the corporate account. 

2. During the period 1969 through 1972, Associated 
Milk Producers, Inc. (AMPI) (or its predecessor organizations) 
accounted for a very substantial percent of Mr. Russell's bus- 
iness income. 

3. In December of 1969, Mr. Russell informed me that he 
had received a telephone call from Bob Lilly, an employee of 
AMPI. Mr. Russell told me that Mr. Lilly wanted $5,000.00, 
and that the funds were for the use of AMPI. Mr. Russell ask- 
ed me to contact Mr. Harold Nelson, General Manager of AMPI, 
so that we could check with him. 



7921 



•4. Someone contacted Mr. Nelson, I do not recall if it 
was Mr. Russell or myself or both, and to the best of my recol- 
lection, the following explanation was offered as to the re- 
quest for funds. Mr. Nelson advised that the money was to 
pay legal fees and expenses incurred by Bob Lilly for the use 
of AMPI . Mr. Nelson stated that he had been receiving complaints 
from AMPI Board Members concerning excessive direct home office 
expenses, and that by using Mr. Russell, Mr. Nelson could les- 
sen the complaints. 

5. The first check for Mr. Lilly in the amount of 
$5,000 (Exhibit A) was mailed to him on December 19, 1969. I 
prepared a billing for AMPI on December 22, 1969 in the amount 
of $8,000 (Exhibit B) . I attached a note to the invoice which 
read something to the effect "Bob, this is the matter we talk- 
ed about". I knew that Mr. Russell would have to pay the tax 
on any money billed to AMPI. There was no fixed amount or 
percentage, just whatever I happened to bill. Mr. Russell 
did not receive repayment until January ,1970 . These trans- 
actions did not affect reportable income for 1969, as Mr. 
Russell computes his taxable income on the calendar year. 

6. Mr. Lilly made a second request in January, 1970 
for an additional $5,000.00. Pursuant to his request, on 
January 16, 1970, I prepared a check made payable to Bob 

A. Lilly for $5,000 (Exhibit C) and on the same date, a cor- 
responding billing to AMPI for $8,000 (Exhibit D) . 

7. These and other transactions were generally han- 
dled in the same manner. If Mr. Russell was in the office 
when Bob Lilly called with a request, Mr. Russell would han- 
dle it; otherwise, I would take care of it . In either case, I 
would prepare the check and with a few exceptions, on the 
same date, a corresponding billing to AMPI. The word"cor- 
responding" in the preceding sentence may not be entirely 
appropriate, although to the best of my recollection, these 
billings appear to represent recoupment, in whole or in 
part, for the money turned over to Bob Lilly. 

8. I also recall that on several occasions, Mr. Lilly 



7922 



requested cash and on one of those occasions personally came 
to our office for the currency. 

9. At no time was I ever informed as to the purpose 

of the funds given Mr. Lilly other than as stated in Paragraphs 
3 and 4 above, and I was never informed as to any disposition 
made by Mr. Lilly of this money. Except for speculation, Mr. 
Russell never discussed it with me, nor did anyone from AMPI . 
It seemed like that after the first few transactions, it was 
just another thing to do. 

10. The following schedule reflects these and other 
payments to Mr. Lilly and our corresponding billings to AMPI 
for the funds: 



PAYMENTS TO LILLY 



BILLINGS TO AMPI 



Check # 


Amount 


Date 


Date 


Amount 


0556 




$ 5,000 


12/19/69 


12/22/69 


$ 8,000 


0600 




5,000 


1/16/70 


1/16/70 


8,000 


153 




5,000 


4/8/70 


4/8/70 


7,500 


3238 


a/ 


5,000 


5/12/70 


5/12/70 


7 ,500 


lOUl 




5,000 


7/16/70 


7/16/70 


7 ,500 


1195 




10,000 


8/27/70 


8/27/70 


15,000 


im9 




5,000 


10/23/70 


10/23/70 


7,500 


238 




5,000 


11/10/70 


11/10/70 


7,500 


270 




5,000 


12/14/70 


12/14/70 


7,500 


1486 




7,500 


1/14/71 


1/14/71 


11,250 


362 




5,000 


3/9/71 


3/10/71 


7,500 


1434 




1,000 


5/28/71 


5/28/71 


2,000 


527 




1,000 


6/28/71 


6/28/71 


2 ,000 


578 




1,000 


7/28/71 


7/28/71 


2,000 


622 




4,000 


8/24/71 


8/24/71 


8,000 


678 




3,000 


9/14/71 


9/14/71 


6,000 


1577 




3,000 


9/24/71 


9/24/71 


6,000 


712 a/ 


4,000 


10/5/71 


10/4/71 


8,000 


765 a/ 


5,000 


11/3/71 


b/ 





847 a/ 


5,000 


12/14/71 


12/24/71 


10,200 c/ 


Totals 


$84,000.00 






$138,950.00 




a/ 


Checks made p. 


ayable to Cash 








b/ 


Could not locate invoice 








c/ 


$200 due and > 


owing by AMPI at 


the time was 


included . 



7923 



11. I recall that on at least one other occasion, another 
employee of AMPI came to our office to pick up currency. On 
July 6, 1970, Mr. V/im Hollowell was given the proceeds of check 
i¥0978 (Exhibit E) dated July 6, 1970 and made payable to Cash 

in the amount of $15,000. Two invoices of Mr. Russell (Exhibits 
F g G) for $9,000 and $11,000 totalling $20,000 were sent to 
AMPI on July 6, 1970. I do not recall who arranged for these 
funds or why Mr. Hollowell was selected to receive the payment. 

12. Mr. Russell's accountant is R.Boze Cooper of Okla- 
homa City, Oklahoma. In connection with the preparation of 
Mr. Russells income tax returns, I made a list, each year, 

of all amounts deposited, amounts received in fees and reim- 
bursed expenses, and all amounts paid out. I supplied this 
information to Mr. Cooper who prepared Mr. Russell's tax re- 
turn based upon this information and upon personal conferences 
with Mr. Russell. 

13. In 1971, when we had Mr. Russell's income tax com- 
puted for the calendar year 1970, we realized that he was go- 
ing to need additional funds from AMPI for the taxes on the 
above described payments. Mr. Russell went to see Mr. Nelson 
at AMPI to see if something could be worked out. When Mr. 
Russell returned, he informed me that he had been given 
$50,000 (Exhibit H) from AMPI. 

14. On the same day that Mr. Russell advised me that 
he had been given the $50,000 (Exhibit H) , he requested me 
to prepare a Loan Agreement (Exhibit I). After a later re- 
view of the same, I called Mr. Russell's attention to the 
fact that if something should happen to him, his estate 
would be liable for the unpaid balance. Mr. Russell had me 
add an addendum to the loan agreement , whereby the debt 
would be cancelled in the event of his death. A copy of the 
amended agreement (Exhibit J) was forwarded to Mr. Nelson 
for his signature. 

15. Mr. Russell's monthly retainer from AMPI was in- 
creased from $1,000 to $6,000. The retainer was increased 



^ 



7924 



for twelve months beginning on April 1, 1971, and terminat- 
ing on April 1, 1972 (See letter - Exhibit K) for a total 
retainer for that period of $72,000. After April 1, 1972, 
he was compensated on a straight-time billing basis. 

16. Mr. Russell made six payments to AMPI on the Loan 
Agreement from June 1971 through November 1971 for a total 
of $16,666.68. No other payments were made. In addition, 
on April 18, 1972, Mr. Russell received a check from AMPI 

in the amount of $66,321.48 (Exhibit L) which represented 
a settlement of legal fees et al. 

17. I cannot identify all the billings from Mr. Russell 
to AMPI covered by this settlement. However, I can identify 
one such bill, dated March 16, 1972, in the sum of $38,639.66 
(Exhibit M). The problem of additional taxes also existed 
for 1972; however, since AMPI did not reimburse Mr. Russell 
for that year or tell him to whom the money was paid for le- 
gal services, Mr. Russell paid taxes on all money received 

by him from AMPI, except for reimbursed expenses. 

18. Mr. Russell provided legal services to AMPI 
until October, 1973. 

19. The attached Exhibits A - M described below and 
referred to in this affidavit are true and accurate copies 
of the documents. 



EXHIBITS 

A. Check number 0556 (front and back), drawn on 
Account 173 238 2, dated December 19, 1969, and made payable 
to Bob A. Lilly in the amount of $5,000. 

B. Billing to AMPI dated December 22, 1969 in the 
amount of $8,000 for professional services rendered. 

C. Check number 0600 (front and back), drawn on 
Account 173 238 2, dated January 16, 1970, and made payable 
to Bob A. Lilly in the amount of $5,000. 

D. Billing to AMPI dated January 16, 1970 in the 



7925 



amount of $8,000 for legal services rendered. 

E. Check Number 0978 (front and back) , drawn on 
Account 173 238 2 dated July 6, 1970 in the amount of 
$15,000 made payable to Cash. 

F. Billing to AMPI dated July 6, 1970 in the amount 
of $11,000.00 for professional services rendered. 

G. Billing to AMPI dated July 6, 1970 in the amount 
of $9,000 for professional services rendered. 

H. AMPI check number 601U dated April 1, 1971 and 
made payable to Stuart Russell in the amount of $50,000. 

I. Promissory Note dated April 1, 1971 signed by 
Stuart H.Russell stating terms of a $50,000 loan to Russell 
by AMPI. 

J. Copy of the said Promissory Note as described 
above (Exhibit I), but with addendum cancelling the debt 
in the event of Mr.Russell's death. 

K. A letter from Stuart Russell to Harold Nelson 
dated April 21, 1972, confirming oral agreement ending re- 
tainership agreement and initiating a straight-time reimburse- 
ment basis. 

L. AMPI check number 4540 dated April 18, 1972, and 
made payable to Stuart H.Russell in the amount of $65,321.48. 

M. Billing to AMPI dated March 16, 1972 in the amount 
of $38,539.66 for professional services rendered. 

20. I have given this statement voluntarily, from 
my best memory and recollection, after reviewing the documents 
mentioned above and attached to this Affidavit. 




HART 



Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the lUth day of 
March, 197H. 



NOTARY PUBLIC 



My commission expires; 



7926 



<S2 



(; fe O 

2 -J 

H ^ :^ 

to S o 



^vWa^Jeft 



(2^ 




2rHE j^LDenut national bank 

-AND TRUST-COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA CITY 



556 V -•«• 
executive rr^ 
- clubka 
December 19, 1969 



PAYTOTHfc--" 


~ Bob A.fTLilly ■ 




< 5.000.00 


***FIVE THODSAND and'No/lOO*** . - — "-^ \ -' :".■:.. ^^^ 




■ . - 






r 


- - : - - ; 


5"r 






--- - - - ■ 




jj^^(^..^ 




■ _ - . 


-- 









i:i0 30;»ooiqi: 



H'l7 3 2 3a gu* 



.•'0000 500000.'' 



pi- ?AY ASy BAHK, KtS." £:» S 



^ '. - - -~> '" " I- " p; PAY ANY E^K, P gc o.5'^t=- 

^ JAN :>^- ^ FRD S3NSNTi?iLS5^ 






ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS, INC. 

AT7E;I7I0::: •-fr. 3o'q LilVi 

Box 32287 

San Antonio, Texas 78216 



Oecenhsr 22 



^vu-^fi' 



Q^ 



TO Profession-al Services rendered in connection vi^h 
Alamo Milk Producers Association and Federal Trade 
Commission litigation $3 OOJ 00 

J 



II - ho 



7927 



IvVJUj^C' 



g^ 







THE J^iOenUj NATIONAL BANK 

AND TRUST COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA CITY 



Boh -A. Lilly 



- ■ 39-l» 

■"^ 060 '"» 

executive 
club 

.TnnnnyiJ If!, 1970 



:^l 



*FIVE THOUSAND and ffo/lOoPtRO' 



ED i 



$ 5,000.00 



STUART H. RUSSEU. - ATTORNE"i 



i: lOJQ'i'OQlHi: ii"-l73' 2 38 Eu' 



.'•OOOOBOODOQ.'' 



■ si-w -s - x-5; 















Jr A V '," ~ 






^u>an 



January 2C, 2 3?C 



ASSOCIAT-'D .-/ILK PliODUCSRS I'lC 
San Antonio, Texas 78216 



^'1 I 

1 ^ 



70 Legal Services Rendered -•'„ ,-' 
States (IPS) „=, ^ • '-^ ^'^^s °f United 
(no:. A^!Pl] [ "' ' ^^^^^^^^er Dairy Cooperative 



S 5 ,000. 00 



S < -A H 



7928 



uj^e9^ 



NATIONAL BANK 



^^•:a AND TRUST COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA CITY o....^ulu__6^,^[9?0_ 

nof.^ Cash 




0978 



execuiivei 



M 



ID and irdytOO~- - ^"^ " Q Q F" n I 

I — -•• - + "Cn-t I A n 



""STUART H. RUSSELL 



1 5.0 C.OO-?:? 
•:i0 30...ooiq.: „.i?3 j3a sn- 



.''000 1500000/ 






<tvV*JU> 



r 



Jw-f;/ 6. ;970 



AssocrArep.,Mii.< producers imc 

ATTENTION: !U. Rnb l.UnJ '" 
SokTzITT " ■ 

San kntonio, Tzxai, 7i316 



r- 



J. 



■/"/. 



TO P^LO^ziiZonal Se>[i 



P&th, ot n'f --'"t''" ^,i-'^dzKzd In thz ccie o< Dane. 



■ iJJ.000 .00 



7929 



■^c9^ 



t/VjLJk- 



July 3, 1970 



ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS, INC. 
ATTEUTIOtl: ffr . Bob Isham 
Box 32287 

Sun Antonio, Texas 7 8216 



TO Professional Savvices Rendered in the case of Geo. 
Benz & Sons, a Minnesota corporation, vs. Twin City 
Milk Producers Association, Inc., et al . , Unified 
States District Court for the District of Minnesota, 
Third Division, Case No. Civil 3-o3-231 $9, OOP . 00 



7930 



/^,<^'ji]!/\i cu i.ilLii i-'ilGilUClii-lG, ii'C, 

PriON: A/C 512 2-1!-:;5l TSIEX 76.7.U6 

P O. BOX 3i2B7 

SAN ANTON-IO, TEXAS 78216 






r>: ';">'i"" '-r ;■■ ': % ^ H 1"? >n /> jJ^s x> rv*"-* cA^t^ 



7ipril 1 



5v3?i?Jr r.CSSFLL • :;i 

c:'j,r.>;o::A city, OKLAiioyjv 73102 



ASSCCIATtD MILK PRODUCERS, i.NC. 



ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS, INC. 




STUART H. RUSSELL 

Attorney at Law 

2309 First National Building 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 

4 5/236-5991 

" .f 
\ 



.J 



'^ 



L~ I- 7/ 



7931 



^LLtuil 



ERO[liSSORY iQIE 



Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 
April 1, 1971 






ssoVooo.oo 

On the 1st day of October, 1972, for value received, 
I promise to pay. to associated MILK PRODUCERS, INC., GPM Build- 
ing, San Antonio, Texas, or order, 

FIFTY THOUSAND AND NO/100 DOLLARS (SSOVOOO.OO) 

WITH INTEREST FROM DATE AT THE RATE OF SiX (6) PERCENT -PER ANNUM 
to MATURITY AND WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF TEfi '(10) PEFitENT 
PER ANNUM FROM MATURITY, AND TeN (10) PERCENT OF'- PPINCtPAL AND • 
INTEREST IN ADDITION THERETO AS ATTORNEY'S FE£S^i'N--CASE-. THI-S 
NOTE IS NOT PAID WHEN DUE AND THE HOLDER THERSOF: SHALL PJ.ACE 
THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF AN ATTORNEY FOR COLLc^JTT'ON , I KEREBY 
WAIVE PRESENTMENT, DEMAND, PROTEST AND NOTICE OF PROTEST FOR ' 
NONPAYMENT OF THIS NOTE, AND AGREE THAT ANY EXTENSION OF TIME 
OR RENEWALS OF THIS NOTE SHALL NOT AFFECT MY LIABILITY, WHETHER 
I HAVE NOTICE OF SUCH EXTENSION OR RENEWALS OR NOT. 

I PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO, BUT AM NOT Q3L1GATED TO, 
REPAY SAID LOAN IN MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OF $2,777.73 PER MONTH, 
TO BE APPLIED TOWARD THE PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION. 

-'■ ThIS^ DEBT IS INCURRED PRIMARILY FOR A BUSINESS PUR- 
POSE AND NOT FOR A PERSONAL, FAMILY, HOUSEHOLD, OR AGRICULTURAL 
PURPOSE. ' 



7932 



CLykJoJr 3 



Oklahoma City, Oklaho:"a 
April 1, i97i 






$50,000.00 



On the 1st day of October, 1972, for value received, 
I promise to PAY..TO ASSOCIATED .^ilLK PRODUCERS, INC., GP;-. Build- 
ing/ San Antonio, Texas, or order, 

. FtFTY THOUSAND AND N0/4L00 DOLLARS ($50,CGO.OO) 

WITH IMTEREST' I^I^M DATE AT' THE. RATE OF SiX (62 PERCENT PER A;;:;l." 
TO MATURITY -^^rSD'-WITH INTETx'EST AT THE RATE OF 1 EN (lu) PERCE.NT 
PER ANNIIM-FTRQMV'.ATIJRITY, T^ND TeN (10) PERCENT OF ?Rir;CIPAL AND 
INTEREST ]T> AdDITIOM THERETO AS ATTORNEY S FEES IN CASE THIS 
NOTE IS i!0'r--PAID WHEN DUE AND THE HOLDER THEREOF SHALL PLACE 
THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF AN ATTORNEY FOR COLLECTIC::. I HEREBY 
WAIVE PRESENTMENT, DEMAND, PROTEST AND NOTICE OF PROTEST FOR 
NONPAYMENT OF THIS NOTE, AND AGREE THAT ANY EXTEr.'SICN OF TI.XE 
OR RENEWALS OF THIS NOTE SHALL NOT AFFECT MY LIABILITY, WHETHER 
I HAVE NOTICE OF SUCH EXTENSION OR RENEWALS OR NOT. 

I PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO, BUT AM NQT^CBLT GATED TO, 
REPAY SAID LOAN IN MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OF $2,777.73 PER fWNTH, 
TO BE APPLIED TOWARD THE PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION, 

This debt is ir^CuRRZD primarily for a business pur- 
pose AND NOT FOR A PERSONAL, FAMILY, HOUSEHOLD, OR AGRICULTURAw 

purpose. 



In THE EVENT OF THE DEATH OF StUART H, RuSSELL 
prior to MATURITY DATE OF THIS NOTE, ANY UN- 
LIQUIDATED BALANCE DUE A.f'l.P.I. WILL BE WAIVED, 



H.S. Nelson, 
General manager 



7933 






STUART H. Russell 

2309 FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING 
OKLAHOMA CITY. OKLAHOMA 73102 



y — 



-/ 



V 



405/236-599I 



AIR MAIL 



April 21, 1972 



\' 



J 



Harold S,/><elson, Attorney 

AssocJ^ated Hilk Producers, inc. 

Box/32237 

S^n Antonio, Texas 78284 

Dear Harold: 

This letter will confirm our oral agreement 
under the terms of which the retalnership agreement 
between myself and AMPI was discontinued effective 
April 1, 1972. 

Billings for services rendered from that 
tirae forward will be based upon a straight time basis. 
We have- Instituted a time record-keeping system-^ which 
will account for the multitude of other regular legal 
matters previously covered by the regular retainer. 

Yours very truly. 



STUART H. RUSSELL 



SHRrjh 

cc: R.O. Isham '-^ 



7934 






y 



Co - ■ 

^ -: : 

Co «» - ■ 
C- 3 ... 

vO r» <o 

^::> 1^5 3 

D •.- rj uj 

^ ° 2 2 

. !--^ 2 

>^ == 

Co -■■ 
^ -. . 



_^ 



<>v 






go 



I ,. 



< o- 



UJ Ou 
H (-" 
< zo 

CO ^ 
< 



«• I 



^ 



^ \ i ^^ 



7935 



^yJ^ .Jh,/ Al 



'J 



•V,*«5 *"r^ -» 










f 

Icin An ton i o , ^Taxas iZlMi. 







• ;33>639.66 ..^ 



7936 

U.S. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL 
CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 



AFFIDAVIT 

I. ^y^k<^/f ^^. Wh/Y^€OA/ . being duly sworn, 
make this' affidavil: for 'the Senate Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities. 

1. I am the Special Assistant to the Chief of 
Protocol J U.S. Department of State. From September 1, 
1970 to March, 1972, I was Special Assistant to the 
President of the United States. 

2. I hereby affirm that the attached White House 
memorandum dated December 17, 1970 is a true copy, and 
that the initials affixed thereto are mine. 

3. I recall receiving in December, 1970 from 
Patrick J. Hillings a sealed letter, as referred to 

in the attached memorandum, and affirm that such memor- 
andum and letter were forwarded to H.R. Haldeman. 

4. I have no knowledge of the contents of said 
letter. 




Sworn and subscribed to before 
me on the JpS^^gtj,. day of 

January, 1974 

Ky Coniiiiissicn EspLres April 30. 1973 



7937 



MEMORANDUM 



THE WHITE HOUSE 

WASHINGTON 

December 17, 1970 

TO: H. R. HAJ.33EMAN 

FROM: ROGER JOHNSON 

SUBJECT: Letter to the President from Pat Hillings. 



Pat Hillings Fianded rne the attached letter and a.-rkod 
that it be directed to the President. It concerns a n>atter 
with which both Peter Flanigan and Chuck Colson a.re favniliar 
and on which they are working. 




7938 



SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE 
ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIBITIES 



AFFIDAVIT 



District of Coltimbia 
City of Washington 

I, Kirby Jones, a resident of 7108 Exeter Street, Bethesda, 
Maryland, being dvily sworn, hereby depose and say as follows: 

From August, I969 to November, 1971, I was employed in the 
consulting firm of Ted Van Dyk Associates, Inc., then located at 
1224 - 17th St., N. W. and now located at 11 56 - 15th St., N. W., 
Washington, D. C. 20005. From November, 1971 until November, 1972, 
I was employed by the McGovern for President Committee, I9IO K 
Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. I am currently employed as 
Executive Director of the National Executive Conference of 
Washington, Inc., II56 - 15th St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 20005. 

In my capacity as a consultant with Ted Van Dyk Associates, 
Inc., I did not work on behalf of Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 
"AMPI," but with other clients, including an independent film 
company and a large advertising firm. 

In September of 1970, Ted Vsm Dyk asked me whether I would be 
willing to forward $10,000 to a mem who worked for AMPI (who I 
later was told to be Bob Lilly) , on the basis that AMPI could not 
pay the man through normal channels. For this, Ted Van Dyk Associates, 
Inc. would reimburse me in the sum of $12,000 — $10,000 to cover 
my check to Mr. Lilly and $2,000 to cover the additional income tajc 
which would be necessitated by the $12,000 payment from Ted Van Dyk 
Associates, Inc. to me, which I would report as income. 

I asked Mr. Van Dyk the reason for this procedure. He informed 
me that AMPI wanted to give Mr. Lilly $10,000 as a salary increase 
or bonus aaid that AMPI could not do this through its regular 
business operations. Mr. Van Dyk told me that AMPI had asked his 
company to do this, but that Mr. Van Dyk told them that he would 
have to send Mr. Lilly a proper IRS form, as he had done when 
given a similar request in I969. AMPI then asked him to write a 
personal check to Mr. Lilly, for which presumably AMPI would make 
reimbursement. Mr. Van r)yk explained that such aji increment of 
$10,000 to his personal income would cost AMPI a considerable 
amount to cover Mr. Van Dyk's additional personal income taxes. 
AMPI finally asked if there were any individuals in Van I^k's 
firm who could send such a check to Mr. Lilly. He told AMPI he 
would ask me. I agreed. 



7939 



On or about September 9> 1970, I drew a check In the amount 
of $10,000 payable to Bob Lilly on my personal checking account, 
and sent it to Bob Lilly. On or about September 11, 1970, I 
received a check, in the amount of $12,000 payable to me, from 
Ted Van Dyk Associates, Inc. and signed by Ted Van Dyk, with the 
notation For AMPI Convention Project." It is my understanding 
that Ted Van Dyk Associates, Inc. billed and received from AMPI 
$12,000 for the payment to me. In early 1971, I received copy B 
d^a United States Internal Revenue Sei-vice Form 1099 from Ted Van 
Dyk Associates, Inc. in the amount of $12,000 reflecting the pay- 
ment to me. For the calender year 1970, I duly reported on my 
income tax return the $12,000 as personal income and paid the tax 
due. 

Attached to this affidavit are true copies of the following 
documents described above: 

(A) cancelled check #544, dated September 9, 1970, in the 
amo\mt of $10,000 payable to Bob Lilly ajid signed 
Kirby Jones. 

(B) eancelled check #489, dated September 11, 1970, in the 
amoimt of $12,000, payable to Kirby Jones and signed 
Ted Van Dyk, 

(C) Copy B of Form 1099 - U. S. Information Return for calender 
year 1970, for Kirby Jones, from Ted Vein Dyk Associates, 
Inc., for $12,000. 

At that time, I felt the whole procedure stramge, but thought 
that it might have been a practice frequently followed with businesses, 
In addition, I was then pleinning to take my wife to Europe in 
November and felt I could make good temporary use of the extra $2,000. 

While working with Ted Van Dyk Associates, I had absolutely no 
professional contact with AMPI, never attended any of its official 
meetings, and was in no way involved with this client. Since I 
shared offices with Mr. Van Dyk, over the course of time, I did have 
infrequent occasion to meet one or two of the AMPI officials but 
only then in the most cursory manner. 

I did not personally know the man — Bob Lilly — to whom I 
wrote the $10,000 check. In fact, I have never talked with him 
or met him, then or since. 

To this day, other than through recent accounts in the media, I 
have absolutely no knowledge that the money I sent to Mr. Lilly in 



7940 



1970 was used for purposes other than those already related. 



To Witness: Washington 
District of Columbia 



Kitby Jc^e 
Subscribed and sworn before me this f .r^ day of February, 197^ 



■7/ "■-' v/■v^<^ 



(utt^dl^ ^^y .^A >/r. 



Notary 



fXy 



commrsslon expires February 14, 197^ 



7941 



KiRBY Jones 
P. Brandon Jones ' 

3807 ,V|>)DERWOOD STREET 
OIBVY CHASE, MARYlA6iDu-20015-~»- — - ^3. 

loRDER OV_I^OP_J-^fJS4yz_ fii '., i ! ; > , 



— 7^u i^^ 



f^*^t 



Exhibit A 



544 

Dnr.i.ARS 



« 7X* RIGGS NA-ndNAL'.feANK'EP ^ 8 "^ ■ 

0/"TASHINCnt)N"aC-« I 
CHEVY CHASE OlfFICl A 
CONNICTICUT AVE. » MORRISON ST., N. WV* T ' 

11 '(« .» I 



;.i:o5iiO>«ooo3i: ob'»o 551.1 la sn- 




.. »;i. . ..» •■ t , ti 



^ 

/.-• 



^ 



y / f —■•'••- =10 












•:-J } 



?5 



7942 



ir- . ■ ■■ J. 1 ■...-p.j^- 1^^^ ^ I Mm Mi 



i^,ip6^^X':.'!^^^y 19?.«« 







D Van I)\-k ABHiit-i.\i-i:a. iHti. 

lav-t ITTU aTHKKT. s. *. 
W^hUIVOTOab |>. t. 9UOO« 



Exhibit B 

489 



»ejv« Thouaand Dollars ond 00/100- 
KoB/A'5i,?0G>'entlon Project^ __ _ 







fti> tia Hia Aawmtn* 



/ooo*?ooooo/ 



t^utjuuu/ 



r^ 



■ III— II 1-T1-- i ir-jTcr» g>«u,<it«ifc;^>a»B.<.- 



...'.A.A T '.. ;~.i .r**^ 







'000 p;.^ I -i-iir 



•'m- — ♦♦« i J5 



Jt'g'^».'iga<j.v,<v;;»«iia«rv«.. 



7943 



Form 1099— U.S. INFORMATION RETURN FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1970 

; (PIcOM keep Ihll copy— Oo not attach to your Fncome tai return) 



Copy B 
For Payee 



t. Gron dhridcnds ind 
etbtr dbtrlbutiona 



2. Camlnn fram uv- 
Inn Bod loan is- 



3. Othar Intcrast. D« 



4. Patranifa dlvldmdt 



5. RMti Hd rayaRiM 



8. AnnnltlM, panslon, 
■od othtf fliad at 
diUnnlnabU Incomi 



7. CommluloBt, ftn, 
piiia and awinlt, ctt^ 



12,000.00 

— y 



005yM-6467 



Tip* ox pilal loxpajAX IdvnlUTlag boib^i ^ \. 

Klrby Jones ',■ ; • ' 
3807 Underwood Road 
Chevy Chase, Maryland . 



TO WHOM PAID B &• U«dfrb« seal>n b aol Oova •!»•• or la ijuomdr 
A«»». Jliiin fjuirt t^i rnniffl ■Tn'-ir hr IV* • ■- ^- TT— (OVER) 



52-0893941 

Ted Van Dyk Assoc., Inc. 
1224 17th Stteet, N. W. 
Washington, D. C. 20036 



BY WHOM PAID g^™"- '^i^So?"''"* "* "*'* 
Dniiful <« Ike T ii— j l i U Mi leiuiie SMke 



7944 

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 
AFFIDAVIT 



1. My name is Herbert Warren Kalmbach and I reside at 
1056 Santiago Drive, Newport Beach, California. 

2. I have caused to be produced to the Senate Select 
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities certain records 
in my possession, custody or control and called for by a 
subpena duces tecum served upon me by the Committee. Among 
the records produced are my daily logs for the calendar 
years I969 and 1970. These logs are dated and were written 
on or about the dates appearing on the log pages. Attached 
to this affidavit are true copies of the following pages 
from those logs as they pertain to my contacts with the milk 
producers : 

A. A document titled "Thursday 3-25". 

B. A document titled "Wednesday 4-2". 

C. A document titled "Kalmbach, DeMarco, 
Knapp & Chillingworth, Appointments and 
Notes for the Week 6-9- '69 to 6-15- '69". 

D. A document titled "Friday, 6-13". 

E. A document titled " Kalmbach, DeMarco, 
Knapp & Chillingworth" Appointments and 

Notes for the week Monday (6-30) Thursday (7-3)", 

P. A document titled " Kalmbach, DeMarco, 
Knapp & Chillingworth, Appointments and 
Notes for the week of 7-7-69 to 7-13-69". 

G. A document titled "Sat, 8-2". 

H. A document titled "Kalmbach, DeMarco, 

Knapp & Chillingworth, Appointments and 
Notes for the week 8-4-69 to 8-IO-69". 

I. An undated document titled "Miscellaneous". 

J. An undated document titled "Ehrlichman" . 

K. A document titled "8-11- '69 @ 10:00 Meeting 
with John Ehrlichman in John's Office at the 
Western White House". 



7945 

L. A document titled "11-23 to 11-29". 
M. A document titled "Friday 11-27". 



District of Coliimbia 
City of Washington 




' Herbert Warren \Kalmbach 



Subscribed/ and sworn vto before me 
this irtr day of C/rinF, 1974. 



'ibed/and sworn vto bef( 
y/t^ day of [JrinF, 

mission Expires lo/^l 78 ryiO/rT^^ ^Cn^a Z/^ 

7 7 ' Notary Public 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 - 27 



7946 



ATTACHMENT A 



oAiE n^.^jL^.. 7.5 e-i 


n,o 






V 








U 45 


r 
















'TuJ^h^ 






















Y 
















U 30 








' 










45 


















00 


















/" 














'I* ' ^''e <r 1 MJ>~ 1 


4- 






■ 










45 


















00 
















- ■ 


\- 




























45 














00 


















n 15 


















U 30 


















45 


















00 














7" 
















/30 


















45 


















00 


















n '^ 


















U 30 


















45 


















n °° 


















U '5 



















7947 









ATTACHMENT B 


DATE 


^i^^l-Z-XA-r-Z-fL,-* V-2- 


UUa 


f:- -" - ; 




lOL- Tjc^^A-vi, Ji 


r 






'■'- 


f'vvUi^ ' /^2£Ct-f A^ 


00 

ri 15 






Xrt*-i./u AS-e- s^ 


'y/^^nrn ' 






'TyuU.^ yC^^^L^-cU 






IC^g^ %^~^ z9(nT CSuJ}.3o£} 






■^yoC 7,S~-^ /y\-rj Z ^ ri^TZ^^jJ^ 


d 30 














43 






, 








00 

r- 

^ 30 


- 






































45 












:^/<^- 


00 














r 15 

J 30 















j^A^„^... ^-^ 






























— 


00 












1 


n 15 






■ 










U 30 
















— 


45 

















00 














/ 30 




























45 




- 


— 




00 

n '^ 




















U 30 
















45 


















n °° 


















U '5 



















7948 



ATTACHMENT C 



KALMBACH, DeMARCO, KNAPP ft CHULINGWORTH 

Appointments and Notes for the Week 
THURSDAY l\4 -. 



.^-r 



/Z. ) 




7949 



ATTACHMENT D 


DATE 


^A^ 


— 1. ^•'^ 


2 


30 
45 






^H^ ^ 


---- - - - 



















T 


15 
45 













^ 






' 






















4 


00 

15 






















- - 










30 














' 


45 












( 






00 






















F3 

1u 












- 




u 








■■ 














I--, 










n 


00 












15 — 
30 














- - 


45 





































1 


7 
























/ 










45 


























n 




















1 






. 






30 






1 


U 




1 




45 






1 




































u 













7950 

ATTACHMENT E 

<^^^^ ' RALMBACH. DelMRCO. RHAPP & CHIIUHGWORTH 

— —^ Appointments and Notes for the Week 

O^^W^-^ j to ^ 

Jma^lf^ ftJ3) 






% 



'-La 



MONDAY 



( k~30 > THURSDAY (7-3 ) 



%HA 



7951 



ATTACHMENT F 






= «^ 



oa-S 



oN 



l'^ 



S Q■^v - 
on a.\N 

^ < I < 



N 



a fN 



1^ 




7952 



ATTACHMENT G 







0^. 



n ■■ 



7953 



ATTACHMENT H 



KALMBACH, DeMARCO, KNAPP & CHILLINGWORTH 

Appointments and Notej for the Week 
MONDAY ( ) THURSDAY ( ) 



<--^6«<-^^c>gX..w>».^^L^u»j 



TUESDAY ( ) FRIDAY ( ) 



^. sCt-yyv^X^^/ . . C^t)-x^ Ul^—iMHjeA 



WEDNESDAY ( ) SATURDAY ( ) 



SUNDAY ( ) 



7954 

ATTACHMENT I 






7955 

ATTACHMENT J 



t/ v-fe-r-r-^-^ ^^p=v 



7956 



ATTACHMENT K 






Md' M-*- J>ryvs.xA,' , 



7957 



ATTACHMENT L 



//-■L^ ^ // 



^ 



^^~^f' 



rhujue 



7958 



ATTACHMENT M 



^AauU ^^ //-2^ 



i^S£. Ju^'yy^ ^ 



7>ujU.i- ^.ti-vi^^ , 



7959 



Senate Select Committee 
On Presidential Campaign Activities 

AFFIDAVIT 

Washington 

District of Columbia 

Alexander W. Keema being sworn deposes and says: 

I am a U.S. General Accounting Office auditor, assigned to 
the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 
as an auditor/investigator. As part of my work for the Committee, 
I have compiled the attached schedules which reflect selected 
contributions for the period beginning January 1, 1971 and ending 
December 31, 1972, reported by the following political committees: 
"Trust for Agricultural Political Education," (TAPE); "Committee 
for Thorough Agricultural Political Education,'^ (CTAPE): "Trust 
for Special Political Agricxiltural Community Education," (SPACE): 
and "Agricultural and Dairy Educational Political Trust," (ADEPT). 
I extracted the entries for these schedules from copies of reports 
submitted by the above-named committees to the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives under the provisions of the Corrupt Practices 
Act of 1925 for the period January 1, 1971 through April 6, 1972 
*nd -under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 for the period 
April 7, 1972 through December 31, 1972. During the latter period, 
copies of these reports were also submitted to the General Account- 
ing Office and the Office of the Secretary of the Senate. 

The attached schedules attribute some $332,500 in contributions 
during calendar year 1971 to President Nixon's re-election effort. 
Neither the reports of TAPE, ADEPT or SPACE, nor the names of the 
recipient committees indicate that President Nixon was the bene- 
ficiary of $322, 500 of these contributions. This amount is 
attributed to the President's re-election effort on the basis of 
the White House White Paper dated January 8, 197^*, entitled "The 
Milk Price Support Decision," as well as docximentation obtained 
by the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities 
from the Finance Committee . to Re-Elect the President and from other 
sources. 

Similarly, Senator Fred Harris was not specifically Identified 
as the beneficiary of four contributions reported by ADEPT on 
November 2, 1971. The recipient committees were identified as 
being in support of Senator Harris in a memorandum submitted to the 
Senate Select Committee by ADEPT. All other recipient committees 
identify, in the committee name, the candidate supported. 

I hereby attest that the entries on the attached schedules 
accurately reflect entries included in the above described reports. 



j;e^^^i»:wi:^ -^ 



Alexander W. Keema 

Subscribed and Sworn to before me / 
on this I'^f: d ay of TheJt/ih ^ tf^T 



1]1^<LW 



'£D£a2J^ 



iry Pub! 
My Commission expires / 0/3 1 J7S 



7960 



CONTRIBUTIONS BY THREE M/UOl DAIRY TRUSTS 

DURING 1971 AND 1972, 

TO 1972 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES* 



Dairymen, Inc. Mid-America 
(SPACE) Dairymen 
(ADEPT) 



1971 
1972 



$ 65,000 

50,000 

$115,000 

$115,000 



Presidential Candidate 

Republican 

Richard M. Nixon 

Totals 1971-1972 

Total Dairy Contributions — 
All Republican Presidential 
Candidates 

Democratic 

Wilbur Mills 

Totals 1971-1972 

Hubert Humphrey 

Totals 1971-1972 
Totals 1971-1972 

Fred Harris 

Totals 1971-1972 
Henry Jackson 

Totals 1971-1972 
Edmund Muskle 

Totals 1971-1972 
George Wallace 

Totals 1971-1972 
Vance Hartke 

Totals 1971-1972 
George S. McGovern 

Totals 1971-1972 

Total Dairy Contributions — 
All Democratic Presidential 
Candidates 

* As reported to the Clerk of the House of Representatives 



$ 65,000 

45,000 

$110,000 

$110,000 



AMPI 

(TAPE/ 

CTAPE) 



$202,500 $332,500 

95,000 

$202,500 $427,500 ** 



$202,500 $427,500 



1971 














$ 


1, 


,500 


$ 


1,500 


1972 


$ 


12, 


500 


$ 


16,600 


$ 


25, 


,000 




54,100 




$ 


12, 


,500 


$ 


16,600 


$ 


26, 


,500 


$ 


55,600 


1971 









$ 


125 


$ 


5, 


,000 


$ 


5,125 


1972 


$ 


3, 


,500 




1,100 


$ 


7, 


,500 


$ 


12,100 




$ 


3, 


500 


$ 


1,225 


$ 


12, 


,500 


$ 


17,225 


1971 


$ 







$ 


10,000 


$ 







$ 


10,000 


1972 




























$ 







$ 


10,000 


$ 







$ 


10,000 


1971 


$ 







$ 





$ 







$ 





1972 









$ 

$ 


4,500 
4,500 


1. 
$ 







^''' 


$ 
$ 


4,500 




$ 







4,500 


1971 


$ 







$ 





$ 







$ 





1972 









$" 


2,750 
2,750 


■$" 








T" 


2,750 




$ 







2,750 


1971 


$ 







$ 





$ 







$ 





1972 


$ 
$ 


2, 
2, 


000 
000 







$~ 








$" 


2,000 




$ 





2,000 


1971 


$ 







$ 





$ 


1, 


,600 


$ 


1,600 


1972 














$" 


"t; 


250 
,850 


F 


250 




$ 







$ 





1,850 


1971 


$ 







$ 





$ 







$ 





1972 




























$ 







$ 





$ 







$ 







$ 


18, 


000 


$ 


35,075 


$ 


40, 


850 


$ 


93,925 



** Listed in the White House White Paper 
to the "funding of the President's re- 



as "some $427,000" from the dairy trusts 
election effort". 



7961 

CONTRIBOTIONS FROM DAIRY TRUSTS IN SUPPORT OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 1971-1972 

I.Reported by SPACE (Dairymen, Inc.) 

Political Party Amoxint of Date of Reporting 

Candidate - Receiving Committee Contribution Contribution Period 

Republican; 

Richard M. Nixon 



Republican National Finance Comnlttee $ 5,000 



Republican National Candidates 
. Conference 



Republican National Committee 



5,000 



5,000 



Republican National Finance dperations 5,000 
Committee 

Republican National Association (sic) 5,000 

5,000 



Klck-Off "71" Republican Dinner 
Conmlttee 



Americans Involved Comnlttee 2,500 

Association of Involved Volunteers 2,500 
Conmlttee 

Americans for a Preservation of a 2,500 
D ecent American Society Conmlttee 

Americans United for Sound Money 2,500 
C onraittee 

Coimlttee for a Better American 2,500 

Association for Preservation of Sound 2,500 
Political Ideals Committee 

Association for Preservation of Basic 2,500 
American Ideals Committee 

Association for More Effective Federal 2,500 
A ctlon Committee 

Americans United for Better Federal 2,500 
Planning Conmlttee 

Americans Working to Build a Better 2,500 
Community Committee 

Americand Dedicated to Sound 2,500 

Economic Growtih Committee 

Supporters of the American Dream 2,500 
Committee 

Salute to the President Committee 5,000 

Democrats for Nixon Conmlttee 25,000 

Finance Conmlttee to Re-Elect the 25,000 

President 

Total Contributions - $115,000 

Richard M. Nixon 

Total SPACE Contributions - All 

Republican Presidential Candidates $115,00(1 



3/24/71 
3/24/71 

3/24/71 
3/24/71 

3/24/71 
-5/7/71 

8/19/71 
8/19/71 

8/19/71 

8/19/71 

8/19/71 
8/19/71 

8/19/71 

8/19/71 

8/19/71 

8/19/71 

8/19/71 

8/19/71 

11/9/71 

8/2/72 

10/28/72 



3/1/71/-5/31/71 
3/1/71-5/31/71 

3/1/71-5/31/71 
3/1/71-^5/31/71 

3/1/71-5/31/71 
3/1/71-5/31/71 

6/1/71-8/31/71 
6/1/71-8/31/71 

6/1/71-8/31/71 

6/1/71-8/31/71 

6/1/71-8/31/71 
6/1/71-8/31/71 

6/1/71-8/31/71 

6/1/71-8/31/71 

6/1/71-8/31/71 

6/1/71-8/31/71 

6/1/71-8/31/71 

6/1/71-8/31/71 

9/1/71-12/31/71 
7/28/72-8/31/72 
10/27/72-12/31/72 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 - 28 



SPACE Contributions - Cont. 



7962 



Political Party 

Candidate - Receiving Committee 



Amount of 
Contribution 



Date of 
Contribution 



Reporting 
Period 



Hubert H. Humphrey 

Humphrey for President Committee $ 1,000 

Friends of Humphrey Committee 2,500 

Total Contributions - Hubert H. Humphrey $.3,500 

Wilbur Hills 

Mills for President National 
Committee 

Mills for President Committee 

Mills for President Committee 

Total Contributions - Wilbur Mills 

George Wallace 

George Wallace National Campaign 
Fund 

Total Contributions - George Wallace 

Total SPaCE Contributions - All 

Democratic Presidential Candidates 



4/24/72 
9/25/72 



4/7/72-5/31/72 
9/1/72-10/16/72 



$ 5,000 


5/15/72 


4/7/72-5/31/72 


5,000 


6/19/72 


6/1/72-7/27/72 


2,500 


8/15/72 


7/28/72-8/31/72 


$12,500 






$ 2,000 


5/4/72 


4/7/72-5/31/72 


$ 2,000 






$18,000 







7963 



CONTRIBOTIOWS FROM DAIRY TRUSTS IN SUPPORT OP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 1971-1972 
II. Reported by ADEPT (Mld-Ajnerlca Dairymen) 



Political Party 

Candidate - Receiving Committee 

Republican: 

Richard M. Nixon 

Klck-Off "72" Republican Dinner 

Republican National Conralttee 

Republican National Finance 
Coomittee 

Republican National Finance 
Operations Committee 

Republican Victory Coonlttee 

Republican Campaign Committee 

Conmlttee for a Republican 
Congress 

Republican Congressional Candidates 
Conference 

Republican National Associates 

The Organization of Involved 
Americans 

Aaerlcans United for Political 
Awareness 

Americans United for Political 
Involvement 

Americans Participating 

Americans United for Decent 
Government 

Americans United for an Inf oraed 
Electorate 

Salute to the President Dinner 

California Democrats for Nixon 



Massachusetts Democrats & Independents 2,000 
for Nixon 



New York Democrats for Nixon 

Texas Democrats for Nixon 

Democrats for Nixon (Nat'l) 

Missouri Finance Coomittee to 
Re-Elect the President 

Illinois Finance Conmlttee to 
Re-Elect the President 

Iowa Finance Coomittee to Re-Elect 
the President 



Amount of 
Contribution 



Date of Reporting 
Contribution Period 



? 5,000 


4/5/71 


3/11/71-6/1/71 


5,000 


4/5/71 


3/11/71-6/1/71 


5,000 


4/5/71 


3/11/71-6/1/71 


5,000 


4/5/71 


3/11/71-6/1/71 


5,000 


4/5/71 


3/11/71-6/1/71 


5,000 


4/5/71 


3/11/71-6/1/71 


5,000 


4/5/71 


3/11/71-6/1/71 


5,000 


4/5/71 


3/11/71-6/1/71 


5,000 


i«/5/71 


3/11/71-6/1/71 


2,500 


8/20/71 


6/2/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


8/20/71 


6/2/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


8/20/71 


6/2/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


8/20/71 


6/2/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


8/20/71 


6/2/71t8/31/71 


2,500 


8/20/71 


6/2/71-8/31/71 


5,000 


11/9/71 


9/1/71-12/31/71 


5,000 


9/19/72 


9/1/72-10/16/72 


s 2,000 


9/19/72 


9/1/72-10/16/72 


5,000 


9/19/72 


9/1/72-10/16/72 


7,000 


9/19/72 


9/1/72-10/16/72 


6,000 


9/19/72 


9/1/72-10/16/72 


4,000 


11/6/72 


10/27/72-12/31/72 


4,000 


11/6/72 


10/27/72-12/31/72 


4,000 


11/6/72 


10/27/72-12/31/72 



7964 



ADEPT Contributions Cont. 



Political Party 

Candidate - Receiving Committee 



Kansas Finance Committee to 
Re-Elect the President 



Nebraska Finance Committee to 
Re-Elect the President 



Total Contributions - 
Richard M. Nixon 



Total ADEPT Contributions - All 

Republican Presidential Candidates $110,00 



Amount of 
Contribution 


Date of 
Contribution 


Reporting 
Period 


$ A, 000 




11/6/72 


10/27/72-12/31/72 


4,000 




11/6/72 


10/27/72-12/31/72 


$110,000 









Fred Harris 

Action Committee for the Aged 

Committee for Adequate Health Care 

Committee for Citizen Participation 

Committee for a Sound Economy 

Total Contributions - Fred Harris 

Hubert Humphrey 

Humphrey Reception Committee 

Humphrey for President Committee 

Friends of Humphrey Committee 

Total Contributions - Hubert Humphrey 

Henry Jackson 

Citizens for Jackson Committee 

Total Contributions - 
Henry Jackson 

Wilbur Mills 

Mills for President Committee $ 

Mills for President Committee 

Mills for President Committee 

Hills for President Committee 

Total Contributions - Wilbur Mills $ 

Edmund Muskle 

Citizens for Muskle Committee $ 

Muskie Dinner Committee 

Total Contributions - $ 

Edmund Muskie 



Total ADEPT Contributions - All 

Democratic Presidential Candidates $ 35,075 



$ 


2,500 


U/2/71 


9/1/71-12/31/71 




2,500 


11/2/71 


9/1/71-12/31/71 




2,500 


11/2/71 


9/1/71-12/31/71 




2,500 


11/2/71 


9/1/71-12/31/71 


$ 


10,000 






$ 


125 


2/4/71 


1/1/71-3/10/71 




1,000 


4/21/72 


4/7/72-5/31/72 




100 


9/5/72 


9/1/72-10/16/72 


:y 


$1,225 






$ 


4,500 


3/6/72 


1/1/72-3/10/72 


$ 


4,500 







5,000 


6/2/72 


6/1/72-8/31/72 


5,000 


'6/16/72 


6/1/72-8/31/72 


4,100 


77/21/72 


6/1/72-8/31/72 


2,500 


8/11/72 


6/1/72-8/31/72 


16,600 






2,000 


1/7/72 


1/1/72-3/10/72 


750 


4/14/72 


4/7/72-5/31/72 


2,750 







7965 



CraJTRIBUnONS FROM DAIRY TOPSTS IN SUPPORT OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 1971-1972 



III. Reported by TAPE/CTAPE (Associated Milk Producers Inc.) 



Political Party 

Candidate - Receiving Committee 

Republican : 

Richard M. Nixon 

R epubllcan Campaign Committee 

Klck-Off 72 Republican Dinner 

Republican Victory Committee 

Committee for Republican Congress 

Americans Dedicated to Better 
Public Administration 

Association of Americans for Good 
G ovemment 

League for Concerted Action 

League of Dedicated Voters 

Association of Political Volunteers 

Organization of Cwmminlty Volunteers 

Americans Dedicated to Greater Public 
Awareness 

Americans United for Better Federal 
Administration 

Association for Sensible Disarmament 

Organization of Moderate Americans 

Americans Organized for Political 
S tabillty 

Association of Neighborhood Volunteers 

Citizens for Mdte- Effective Community 
Involvement 

Americans Dedicated to Support of 
Democracy 

rganlzatlon of Dedicated 
A merlcans 

League of Involved Citizens 

Committee for a Better Nation 

Citizens for Sound P611cles at 
Home & Abroad 

Americans United for Sensible 
Agricultural Policy 

Citizens for a Better Environment 



Amount of 
Contribution - 



Date of 
Contributions 



Reporting 
Period 



,$ 3,000 


3/22/71 


3/1/71-6/2/71 


3,000 


3/22/71 


3/1/71-6/2/71 


2,000 


3/22/71 


3/1/71-6/2/71 


2,000 


3/22/71 


3/1/71-6/2/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


s 2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


Ic 2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 



2,500 



7/9/71 



6/3/71-8/31/7 



2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2.500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/7 



7966 



TAPE/CTAPE Contributions - Cont. 



Political Party 

Candidate - Receiving Comnittee 

Aoarlcans for Sound Ecological $ 
Policy 

Committee for Better Government 

Association of Political 
Activists 

Americans Dedicated to Peace 

Americans United for Better 
Leadership 

Association for Fair Press 

Association for Political 
V olunteers 

Americans United for Sound Consumer 
Policies 

Americans United for Objective 
Reporting 

League of Citizen Activists 

Citizens for Better Government 

Americans United for Honesty in 
G overnment 

Committee for Political Integrity 

Americans Dedicated to Stable Growth.' 

Americans Dedicated to Clean 
Environment 

Americans United for Political 
Moderation 

Americans United for Sensible 
Politics 

Association for Representative 
Government 

Americans United for Responsive 
Administration 

Organization of Responsible 
Americans 

Organization of Sensible Citizens 

Americans for Sound Educational 
Policy 

Americans Concerned 

Supporters of Rational Federal 
R eorganlzation 

Sound Politics Association 

Committee for Adequate Political 
Information 

rganizatlon of Citizen Politicians 



Amount of 
Contribution 


Date of 
Contribution 


Reporting 
Period 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


.7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500. 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 



TAPE/CTAPE Contributions - Cont. 



7967 



Political Party 

Candidate - Receiving Coirailttee 

Americans United for Sound 
Government 

Americans United for Economy In 
Government 

Americans United for Economic 
Stability 

People United for Good Government 
Committee 

League of Mature Americans 

Volunteers for Good Government 

Volunteers Against Citizen Apathy 

League for American Volunteers 

Americans United for Effective 
G ovemment 

Association for Better Communities 

Association of Concerned Neighbors 

Americans United for Safer Streets 

Americans Dedicated to Volunteer 
Action 

Americans for a More Informed 
Electorate 

Association of Participating 
Volunteers 

Citizens United in Pursuit of the 
American Dream 

Americans for Progress 

A ssociation of Progressive 
Americans 

Americans Dedicated to Progressive 
Policies 



Association of Americans for Retention 2,500 
o f Sound Ideals 



C onmittee for Better Conaiunitles 
League for Political Expression 



Coomlttee for Involvement In Public 
Affairs 



Americans for Greater Awareness in 
Public Issues 



Americans Dedicated to Greater 
Citizen Activity 



Amount of 
Contribution 


Date of 
Contribution 


Repo 
Per 


rting 
lod 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/ 


71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/ 


71-8/31/71 


2,500 


7/9/71 


6/3/ 


71-8/31/71 


5,000 


9/2/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,5001 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


> 2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 


2,500 


9/10/71 


9/1/ 


71-12/31/71 



7968 



TAPE/CTAPE Contributions - Cont. 

Political Party 

Candidate - Receiving Committee 

Citizens for Volunteer Action 

Americans Dedicated to Sound 
Political Philosophies 

League of Thoughtful Americans 

Association for Concerned Citizens 

Total Contributions - 
Richard M. Nixon 



Total TAPE/CTAPE Contributions - All 

Republican Presidential Candidates $202,500 



Amount of 
Contribution 


Date of 
Contribution 


Reporting 
Period 


$ 2,500 




9/10/71 


9/1/71-12/31/71 


2.500 




9/10/71 


9/1/71-12/31/71 


2,500 




9/10/71 


9/1/71-12/31/71 


2,500- 




9/10/71 


9/1/71-12/31/71 


$202,500 









Vance Hartke 



Volunteers for Hartke 

Volunteers for Hartke 

Hartke Presidential Campaign 
Deficit Fund 

Total Contributions - Vance Hartke $ 1,850 

Hubert Humphrey 

Humphrey for Senate Committee* 

Humphrey Dinner Committee 

Humphrey for President Campaign 

F riends of Humphrey 

Total Contributions - Hubert Humphrey $12, 500 

Wilbur Mills 

$ 500 

1,000 

25,000 



$ 100 


4/21/71 


3/1/71-6/2/71 


1,500 


8/17/71 


6/3/71-8/31/71 


250 


12/7/72 


10/28/72-12/31/72 



$ 5,000 


12/3/71 


9/1/71-12/31/71 


1,000 


4/6/72 


3/9/72-5/31/72 


4,000 


5/5/72 


8/9/71-5/31/72 


2,500 


8/16/72 


6/1/72-8/31/72 



Wilbur Mills Appreciation Rally 

Friends of Mills Coranittee 

Mills for President 

Total Contributions - Wilbur Mills $ 26,500 



8/2/71 

9/23/71 

6/13/72 



6/3/71-8/31/71 

9/1/71-12/31/71 

6/1/72-8/31/72 



Total TAPE/CTAPE Contributions - All 

Democratic Presidential Candidates $ 40,850 



* Documentation on file with the Senate Select Committee on Presidential 
Campaign Activities indicates that the Humphrey for Senator Committee 
uas used in part to support Senator Humphrey's presidential campaign 
in 1971 and 1972. 



7969 



AFFIDAVIT 



THE STATE OF TEXAS ) 
COUNTY OF TRAVIS | 

Before me, Louise Crow, a Notary Public in and for Travis 
County, Texas, on this day personally appeared Joe R. Long, who 
being by me here and now duly sworn, upon his oath deposes and says: 
My name is Joe R. Long, I maintain my office at 208 in the 
Westgate Building, Austin, Texas. I am over 21 years of age. This 
Affidavit is furnished to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential 
Campaign Activities, pursuant to a request of Alan S. Weitz, Assistant 
Counsel, such request having been received by letter, dated March 19, 
1974. 

In response to Question Number 1 in the above described 
letter, the following is submitted: 

During the week of December 17, 1969, Mr. Jake 
Jacobsen, of Austin, Texas, who at that time was my 
law partner, requested that I make a donation of 
$2, 000 to Mr. Bob Lilly, who was an employee of 
Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (AMPI),for the pur- 
pose of assisting Mr. Lilly in the repayment of a loan 
which at that time I understood had been made by 
him in August of 1969 from Citizens National Bank, 
Austin, Texas. Mr, Jacobsen represented that Mr. 
Lilly had made the loan in August, 1969, believing 
that it could be paid from funds later to be collected 
by Texas Agricultural Political Education (TAPE), 
and that subsequent to the making of the loan, the 
Trustees of TAPE had discovered that they could not 
Note.- Letter dated March 19, 1974, mentioned above, appears as attachment following this affidavit. 



7970 

repay the loan with the use of TAPE funds. Mr. 
Jacobsen represented that Mr. Lilly had no way 
to repay the loan and was requesting help from 
Mr. Jacobsen and myself to enable him to meet 
his obligation at the bank. AMPI was at that 
time a client of our law firm. Sometime prior 
to June 12, 1970, either Mr, Jacobsen or Mr. 
Lilly (I have no recollection of which person) 
again requested that I make a donation to Mr. 
Lilly for the same purpose. In Decennber, 1969, 
after the request, I made a donation to Mr. Lilly 
for this purpose in the amount of $2, 000. On 
June 12, 1970, I made a donation to Mr. Lilly 
for this purpose in the amount of $2, 125. I did 
not make any donation to Mr. Lilly on June 12, 
1969, as referred to in the above described 
letter. 

Subsequent to my original interview on 
November 3, 1973 with staff members of the 
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Cam- 
paign Activities, I discovered, through 
examination of documents at Citizens National 
Bank, that the loan in question was in fact made 
to Mr. Lilly on December 17, 1969, and that 
the proceeds of the loan were used by him to 
reimburse the TAPE bank account for funds 
withdrawn under the authority of the signatory 
of the account in August of 1969. 



7971 



mitted: 



mitted: 



I have no knowledge of the purpose for which 
Mr. Jacobsen made payments to Mr. Lilly on 
December 17, 1969 or Jtine 12, 1970. 
In response to Question Number 2, the following is sub- 

The checks listed under Question Number 2 were 
withdrawn from the partnership account of the law 
firm of Jacobsen and Long during the years 1970 
and 1971. The checks were withdrawn by the 
partners from retained earnings in the law firm. 
I have no knowledge of the purpose of Mr. Jacobsen 's 
withdrawals, as those funds were exclusively his. 
I have no independent recollection of the purpose of 
the withdrawals which I made on the dates indicated 
in the letter, as they were withdrawals of my funds 
in the usual course of my business. 
In response to Question Number 3, the following is sub- 

I did not bill AMPI or recoup from AMPI monies in 
connection with donations described relating to 
Question Number 1 above. I have no knowledge that 
the firm of Jacobsen and Long either billed or recouped 
from AMPI monies in connection with the donations 
described in Question Number 1. I did not prepare 
nor review the bills which Mr. Jacobsen submitted to 
AMPI, and have no knowledge as to the purpose of etny 
such bills which he rendered. 



7972 



mitted: 



mitted: 



mitted: 



mitted: 



In response to Question Number 4, the following is sub- 

The billings listed in Item 4 were submitted 
to AMPI for legal services which I performed 
as an attorney representing AMPI, and were 
submitted on the basis of legal services 
rendered in connection with the matters out- 
lined in the bills. 
In response to Question Number 5, the following is sub- 

I did not participate in the preparation or 
submission of these bills and have no know- 
ledge as to the reason or purpose for their 
rendition. 
In response to Question Number 6, the following is sub- 

I have no knowledge of the purpose, source, 
or disposition of $5, 000 in cash allegedly 
delivered by Bob Lilly to Jake Jacobsen on 
November 10, 1971, and do not recall, nor do 
I believe that it was delivered in my presence. 
In response to Question Number 7, the following is sub- 

I have no knowledge of the purpose, source, 
or disposition of $5, 000 in cash allegedly 
delivered by Jake Jacobsen to David Parr 
on November 10, 1971, and do not recall 
nor do I believe that it was delivered in my 
presence in the Austin, Texas airport. 



mitted: 



7973 

In response to Question Number 8, the following is sub- 

I have no knowledge as to whether AMPI or 
other corporate funds were used directly or 
indirectly to provide the funds described in 
Questions 6 and 7. 




Subscribed eind Sworn to by the said Joe R. Long on this 
the f) d ay of /L<(yt^^ , 1974, to certify which witness my 



hand and seal of office. 



Louise Crow, Notary Public in 
and for Travis County, Texas 



7974 



. CmriN. J«.. NX., CHAmMAN 



^CrrHcb stales ^enaU 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 

(PURSUAKT TO 5. KLS. «0. »10 CONGRESS) 

WASHINGTON. DC. 20510 

March 19, 1974 



Mr. Joseph R. Long 
P.O. Box 222 
Austin, Texas 78767 

Dear Mr. Long: 

■The Senate Select Committee on Presidential 
Campaign Activities has been investigating certain 

Tno''^r?Mo?f''^^^r^' i?^l^^i"g Associated Milk Producers, 
inc (AMPI), and participation by them and their 

wS^^i^! •^^''^°" ^""""^ ^" ""^^ ^^^2 Presidential Campaign, 
we appreciate your past cooperation in providing us witt 
documents and m having submitted to an interview by the 
Committee staff However, most of the information we 
have obtained with reference to you has been received 
by the Committee in the form of either an affidavit 
or sworn testimony in executive session. Therefore 
^; f^?T^-^^^- ^°" execute and submit to the Committee 
an affidavit with respect to the following matters: 

(1) For what purpose did you and Mr. Jacobsen 
make the following payments to Mr. Lilly: 



a. December 17, 1969 

b. June 12, 1969 



$5,000 
$5,000 



(2) 



For what purpose were the funds generated 
by the following checks (drawn on the 
Jacobsen & Long bank account, #36-263-8, 
Citizens National Bank, Austin, Texas) used. 
Specifically, were any of these monies given 
to Bob Lilly or any other AMPI representative, 
or otherwise used, directly or indirectly, for 
political purposes: 



7975 







Date of 


Date 




Check # 


Amount 


Check 


Negotiated 


Endorsed By- 


1537 


$3,000.00 


2/2/70 


2/2/70 


Jake Jacobsen 


1538 


2,000.00 


2/2/70 


2/2/70 


Joe R. Long 


1835 


4,250.00 


7/24/70 


8/6/70 


Joe R. Long 


1836 


5,750.00 


7/24/70 


8/6/70 


Jake Jacobsen 


1919 


4,250.00 


9/9/70 


9/9/70 


Joe R. Long 


1920 


5,750.00 


9/9/70 


9/9/70 


Jake Jacobsen 


2229 


2,250.00 


2/15/71 


2/16/71 


Joe R. Long 


2230 


2,750.00 


2/15/71 


2/16/71 


Jake Jacobsen 



(3) 



(^) 



(5) 



(6) 



(7) 



(8) 



Did you, Mr. Jacobsen or the firm of Jacobsen 
& Long bill AMPI and/or recoup from AMPI monies 
in connection with the payments described in 
items (1) and (2) above? 

Were the following billings by your firm to 
AMPI in whole or in part connected with the 
payments described in items (1) and (2) above: 



a. December 17, I969 

b. January 6, I970 

c. April 21, 1970 

d. July 16, 1970 

e. August 31, 1970 



$10. 



J10,000 
10,000 
10,000 
22,000 
22,000 



Please explain the portion of the billings from 
your firm to AI4PI in 197O and I97I listed as 

For professional services rendered in excess 
of amoxint covered by retainer" or a similar 
caption. 

What was the purpose, source, and disposition 
of the $5000 in cash delivered by Bob Lilly 
to Jake Jacobsen, allegedly in your presence, 
on or about November 10, 1971? 

What was the purpose, source and disposition 

of the $5000 in cash delivered by Jake Jacobsen to 

Dave Parr, allegedly in your presence on or 

about November 10, 1971 in the Austin, Texas 

Airport? 

Were AMPI, or any other corporate, funds used 
directly or indirectly to provide the funds 
described in items (6) or (7)? 



7976 



Since we must complete our investigation soon, we 
request that you file your affidavit with the Committee 
by April 1, 197^. 



Sincerely, 




Alan S. 

Assistant Counsel^ 



ASW:Jh 

cc: Charles McNeils, Esq. 



7977 



UNITED STATES SENATE 
SELECT COMMITTEE ON 
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES 

AFFIDAVIT 



District of Columbia 
City of Washington 

I, Eleanor Manuel, a resident of 8614 Garland Avenue, 
Takoma Park, Maryland, being duly sworn, hereby depose and say as 
follows : 

1. I was employed by the Republican National Committee, 
hereafter referred to as the RNC, on August 14, 1952. Since 1954, I 
have been charged with the supervision of the telephone operation within 
the national headquarters. . In the course of my duties, I am responsible 
for reviewing all records and bills relating to the telephone operation. 

2. Pursuant to a request by the Presidential Campaign 
Activities Committee, I have supplied the attached true copies of bills of 
long distance telephone calls made by Herbert Kalmbach during the period 
January 1 to April 30, 1972. I was responsible for checking telephone bills 
during that period and the markings which appear on the attached bills were 
made by me at the time of the receipt of those bills. 

3. Long distance telephone calls made by Mr. Kalmbach between 
January 1 and February 1, 1972 were charged to a telephone extensien 
number in RNC Chairman Robert Dole's office. I identified the long 
distance telephone calls made by Mr. Kalmbach by checking each bill 



30-337 O - 74 - pt. 17 - 29 



7978 



Affidavit 
Page 2 



with the telephone company and then writing the number "1000" beside 
each call the telephone company indicated was made by Mr. Kalmbach. 
4. Beginning on February 2, 1972, Mr, Kalmbach started 
charging his long distance telephone calls to a credit card, number 
175-8845-032-M, which was supplied by the accounting office at the 
direction of Chairman Dole. I was notified by the accounting office of 
the credit card number when it was issued to Mr. Kalmbach. 



SJJl^^^^v^^ }yia^.^.»^t^ 



Eleanor Manuel 



^uJL^^^^^ ^ y^ '^'^^ 




Editor's note: To avoid duplication, 
only four pages of the long-distance 
telephone bills are shown. 



7979 




(0 
2 

< 
c: 
U 

UJ 

_i 

k! 
t- 

Q 

Z 
< 

-J 
_J 
< 
U 




S -J 


2 


o 


P" 


-? 


?» 


- 




u 


>- 


rj 


-J 


c: 


< 




t— 


z 


1— 


(1 






i) LU 


CJ 


UJ 


••) 


?• 


■■> 




-! cj 


^ 


^ 


^ 




z 


_j 




X 


s 


X 


:r 


— 


-r 




oo 


u 


to 


n 


oo 


n 


■1. q: 


< 


q: 


< 


T' 


< 


Y 


E U. 


JE 


u. 


:2 


LL 


-■-■ 


LL 


^ 


1^ 




(^^ 




"3^ 






^J■ 




>»• 




>«• 





•^ 






o 




O 




c 




m 




in 




m 


m 




a\ 






o 




fO 




on 




f-d 




CO 




CO 


rr 




^ 


^ 




« 




f 








• 




« 












3 




IT. 


-- 




' — 






<M 








r-l 


==~ 


:::i 






■r 




<s- 




CO 




O 




>J- 




~ 





«3- 








— * 




-1- 




^- 




l_J 








-0 




,_t 






i^ 


»j- 




U^ 




*J 




L^ 




«T 




r- 




^3■ 






i 


'^ 




f\i 




(M 




'^ 




"* 




p- 




^ 






vT. 


r^ 


^. 


^ 


-J- 


^ 


in 


a 


•a 


<~ 


(^ 


^ 


vO < 




Cv, 


M 


in 


c-j 


r- 


r>- 


<M 


t^ 


00 


r\. 


m 


CO 


rl 


vT 


in v}- 




r^ 


'' 


^ 


>o 


•j- 


CM 


CO 


rvj 


t^ 


in 


««■ 


>0 


fo 


O 


.«■ <, 




vD 




-_. 






























, 


(NJ 


m 


(\j 


(\i 


(M 


M 


CM 


sf 


<NJ 


fO 


rvi 


-J- 


fvj .;r 




1 


}!; 


o 


•— < 


-^ 


—< 


«— 4 


9mA 


O 


-^ 


o 


•— * 


O 


•-H 


O -i 




•^ 




fVJ 


(\j 


vn 


(\j 


in 


fSJ 


(M 


f>- 


Px 


f\J 


f\j 


r- 


<\j r- 










-J 




> 




> 




-j 




-J 




-4 


_i 










< 


X 


i: 


X 


^ 




< 




< 




< 


<! 








o 


o 


U-; 




LU 




(.3 


o 


< ) 


o 


(.5 


O 


o <-; 










IS> 


h- 


00 


1— 


t>0 


O 




o 


o 


c 


cn 


Q 






o 


^ 


p- 




z 


o 


^ 


-^ 




?- 


7 


?• 




z: 






-1 


'J 


< 




UJ 


M^ 


LU 


n 


< 


n 


< 


a 


h- 


□ 1- 






* 


H- 


00 




1 1 1 


i: 


UJ 




LU 




OO 


►- 


Q. 


1- a 




O 


u 





O 




-5 


■■) 


J 


'J 


'V 


!*) 


n 


o 


■^ 


■;0 t: 






"S 


^ 


_J 


^ 


a 


t— 


■J 


?' 


ca 


?" 


-J 


2 


P' 


2 2 




"^ 




—4 




c^ 




y 




^^ 








_( 




H4 


m 


sO 




X 


'-•~ 


t— 


>~ 


< 


•ir. 


X 


s 


T 


?■ 


T. 


5- 


X s 


^ 


ir 




00 


u 




n 


^ 


'_) 


00 


u 


</5 


n 


00 


a 


OO u 


^ 






< 


.■^ 


_) 




< 


a 


< 


a: 


<r 


■^ 


< 


a: 


< cc 


w 


dT 




^ 


LL 


< 


u. 


oO 


LL 


-? 


u. 


■^ 


u. 


^ 


LL 


3 U 




■'-* 






























• 






>T 




-i- 




■J- 




m 




>o 




vrt 




r- 




ts 
































n° 


t' 






























orsi 


" 


sr 




>!■ 




vf 




•4- 




•<r 




-I- 




>!■ 





rff 






in 




in 




in 




m 









in 


in 


oCV 






00 




«c 




00 




h- 




«s- 




r- 


^ 


^f^ 


, 




• 




t 




• 




f 




9 




t 


• 




1. 


■— 















m 


-- 


- 


— 


f\j 


s? 






— 


— 


^ 




■T 




>o 


— 


-r 


— 


T 











,-A 




p-4 




—J 




>t! 




rH 








<N 




y 


<■ 




o 




SJ 




(\J 




>3- 




T 




w 




z 


"^ 




o 




'"' 




(M 




'^ 




"-* 









J 


o 


■a- 


<M 


>t 


.o 


r~ 


^3• 


>o 


>0 


(? 


vO 


r^ 


f^ r- 


n 


J 


in 


•j- 


0- 


■J- 


in 


CO 


r- 


>!■ 


in 


fS' 


m 


00 


fi CP 


r^ 


" 


^ 


>o 


vf 


o 


«r 


sO 


fM 


>o 


-*• 


in 


vf 


<o 


n 


<) 




._. 


,_ 


__ 


_. 


._ 


__ 


_. 


._ 





_. 


._ 


__ 





f- 


^ 


(N 


•J- 


-t 


<!• 


(\j 


f, 


n 


sf 


fSJ 


<r 


fSJ 


ro 


(NJ rn 


1 


(T 


O 


r-i 


r~K 


1—1 


o 


.— 1 


•— * 


.— ( 


O 


<— 1 





•-4 


c - 


< 


* 


(M 


r- 


r^ 


r- 


(S) 


fSj 


<M 


r- 


CM 


r>- 


(SJ 


(NJ 


Cs; r>j 








_j 




_i 




_J 




_j 




-1 




— 1 


_ 








< 


_i < 




< 


J 


< 




< 




< 


< 






t ! 


o 


< 


o 


o 


o 


< 


u 


O 





u 





U LJ 






c 


on 


u 


en 


a 


c 


U 


CD 


a 




u 


<•) 






o 


?■ 




^ 




7' 


2 


00 




7' 




?' 


7 


?- ^ 




J 


a 


t— 


^ 


K 


CJ 


< 


_) 


»— 


a 


< 


a 


< 


n < 




< 


1— 


a 


LU 


Q. 


H 


00 


T 


Q. 


1- 


LU 


t— 


(/I 


1- •J' 


o 


u 


:■) 




aj 


2 


iO 


fj 


> 


-^ 


o 


Cf 





n 


c 


o 


-^ 


^ 


7" 


UJ 


TT 


2 


-J 


_l 


^ 


^ 


CO 


-=: 


_J 


2^ _ 


in 




r-H 




-J 




»— « 




a: 




1— 1 




1— 1 




>— I 






r 


y 


o 


?• 


X 


5: 


LU 


S. 


•7" 


5- 


X 


>; 


X z 


{r 




00 


n 


ii 


O 


LO 


a 


> 


o 


00 


7) 


i/1 


n 


00 C 


Sen 




< 


a: 


< 


■ar 


< 


q: 


LU 


a: 


< 


a: 


< 


0; 


< c; 




-& 


X 


00 


u. 


"5 


LL 


13 


IL 


3: 


LL 


^ 


LL 


:^ uL 


■^•j- 




























































fV 
























fH 




r— 4 


j^O 


5 




























8<N 


" 


<t 




«i- 




>t 




«f 




4- 




«r 




>J- 



7980 

IN Till': ui;it]:d states district court 
roR the wes'jern district or te>'j\s 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 



CIVIL ACTION 
NO. SA 72 CA A9 



UNITED STATES OF A>tERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS, INC., 
Defendant. 

f AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD W. HcLAREN 

STATE- OF ILLINOIS ) 

) ss 
COUNTY OF COOK ) 

Richard VJ. McLaren, being first duly sworn, states that 
he makes the follov/ing affidavit for filing with the United 
States District Court for the VJestern District of Texas (San 
Antonio Division) in the above-entitled matter. 

1. I am a United States District Judge sitting in the 
United States District Court for the Northern District of 
Illinois. From February 1, 1969 to February 2, 1972, I v;as 
the Assistant Attorney General of the United States in charge 
of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and I 
had the responsibility, subject to the final authority of the 
Attorney General, for authorizing antitrust investigations 
and the enforcement of the Sherman Act and other federal 
antitrust lav;s . Such responsibility encompasses inquiry by 
the Antitrust Division into contracts, combinations and 
conspiracies which may restrain and monopolize interstate 
trade and comjr.erce, and monopolization of or attempts to 
monopolize such trade and corn'.crce. 



7981 



2. On Aup.ust 10, 1^71 tho atnff of the Miclwc:;U Office 
(Chicap.o) of the Antitrust Division rocoiiancndcd that a [^rnnd 
jury be authorized to further invcstip.ate the activities of 
Associated Milk Producers, Inc. This recommendation was 
concurred in by John E. Sarbaup.h, Chief, Midwest Office; 
Gerald A. Connell, Chief of the General Litigation Section; 
and Robert B. Hummel, Deputy Director of Operations. On 
September 9, 1971 I requested the Attorney General, John Mitchell 
to authorize a grand jury investigation into a possible con- 
spiracy by Al-n and others to eliminate competition in the 
marketing of milk in certain Midv/estern States, in violation 

of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and into possible attempts 
to monopolize the marketing of milk in that area in violation 
of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Prior to sending such recom- 
mendation to Attorney General John Mitchell, I contacted 
Richard Lyng, Assistant Secretary of the United States Depart- 
ment of Agriculture, and discussed the staff's recommendation 
with him. Mr. Lyng indicated to me that a gr;ind jury investi- 
gation of AMPI's activities would not be opposed by his Depart- 

I 
ment. At that time I was aware from nev;s accounts that, approxi- ■ 

mately one v;eek before I sent said request to Attorney General ! 
Mitchell, President Nixon had addressed AMPI's second annual 
meeting in Chicago, to which A>TI reportedly had brought 
AG, 000 members and their wives. i 

3. I was thereafter informed that the Chicago and V.'ashingtor. 
Offices of the Antitrust Division continued to receive complaints 
about A^TI's activities from milk processors and m.ilk producers 
who were not members of A>'PI and the cooperatives to which they 
belonged. On October 29, 1971, after learning that counsel for 
A)U'I were publicly stating (and had, presumably, advised their 



7982 



clients) tlint AMPI vais cxeiupl: from the .TntitrusU lnv;s , I sent 
a second memo to Attorney General Mitchell urp.ing that he ap- 
prove a grand jury investigation of the activities of /VMPI. 
On November 10, 1971 Robert Hummel (with the concurrence of 
John Sarbaugh) suggested to me that, since AlTI's continuation 
of its predatory activities appeared to be causing irreparable 
injury to non-members, the Antitrust Division should think in 
terms of an immediate civil injunctive case against A>1PI and 
not av7ait a determination of our grand jury request. 

4. To the best of my recollection and belief, on or about 
November 30, 1971 Attorney General Mitchell discussed with me 
the requests I had made for a grand jury investigation and, 
after reviewing the legal and tactical questions involved, 
including the difficulties of obtaining a criminal conviction 
in the face of a defense that the defendants' activities were 
exempt from the antitrust laws. Attorney General Mitchell sug- 
gested that the Antitrust Division proceed along civil rather 
than criminal lines. Investigation by Civil Investigative 
Demands, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. §§1311-14, can be a long 
and cumbersome process if the organization under investigation 
decides to resist the Demand through a court proceeding or 
otherwise cause delay in compliance; such investigations have 
sometimes taken more than a year, to complete. In my judgment, 
the situation was sufficiently urgent from the standpoint of 
antitrust enforcement that on November 30, 1971 I requested 
the staff to review the information it had and try to obtain 
by interviews whatever additional evidence was needed to bring 
a civil injunctive case against AJtPI. 

5. On December 20. 1971 the staff of the Hidj.v-est Office 
recommended that a civil corr-plniat be filed against A."PI. The 
recommendation was reviewed by all persons in the Antitrust 
Division in the normal chain of review: John Sarbaugh, Robert 
lluminel, and Bruce Wilson and Walker R. Comcgys , my Deputy 
Assistant Attorneys General. All concurred in the rccoirjr.f '.i:"( 



7983 



6. On January 18, 1972 I met wiulj Assistant Secretary 
of Ap,riculture Richard Lynp^ and shov;cd him a copy of the 
complaint against AI-ITI which I proposed to recommend. Mr. Lyn^ 
stated that he had no objection to the suit being filed and 
that he v;ould advise the Secretary of my proposed action. On 
that same day, following my meeting with Mr. Lyng, I sent the 
proposed complaint to Attorney General Mitchell and strongly 
urged he approve filing the proposed suit against AMPI. 

7. On Saturday, January 22, 1972, the Attorney General 
signed the complaint and requested that, prior to filing suit, 
I givb AMPI the opportunity to enter into negotiations for a 
consent decree to be filed simultaneously with the complaint 
("prefiling negotiations"). On Monday morning, January 24, 
1972, I directed that John Sarbaugh notify AMPI that the 
Attorney General had signed a complaint against AMPI and offer 
AMPI the opportunity to engage in prefiling negotiations. I 

! was informed that John Sarbaugh telephoned Stuart Russell, 
counsel for AMPI, and told him that AMPI had until the close 
of business on Thursday, January 27, 1972, to decide whether 
AMPI wished to engage in prefiling negotiations. I was further 
Informed that Department policy with respect to prefiling 
negotiations v;as explained to Mr. Russell; i.e ., that prefiling 
negotiations afford the defendant the opportunity to enter 
into a consent decree to be filed simultaneously with a 
complaint; that prefiling negotiations are offered by the 
Department in situations where the defendant has agreed in 
principle to the relief requested by the Department; that 
under Division practice, after agreeing to the prefiling 
procedure, parties have sixty days to negotiate a definitive 
consent decree; and that prefiling is not engaged in when tliorr; 
are genuine issues of law or fact in dispute betv;een the 
Department and the defendant. 



7984 



8. I was informed tliat, on Tuesday, Januai'y 25, 1972, 
counsel for AJtPI in Chicago caiae to the Midwest Office and 
read the complaint, and that on January 26, 1972, he advised 
the staff that AIDPI wanted to engage in profiling negotiations. 

9. On January 27, 1972 I was informed by John Sarbaugh 
that counsel for AMPI had met with the Chicago staff and Hr. 
Sarbaugh. Mr. Sarbaugh told me that at that meeting AlIPI 
counsel questioned the propriety of filing a complaint at all; 
stated that a substantial number of the practices questioned 
were exempt from the antitrust laws under the Capper-Volstead 
Act; stated that AMPI had new management and new counsel, and 
they wanted to review V7ith us the facts we had to support our 
complaint; noted that I would very shortly be leaving the 
Antitrust Division; suggested that Attorney General Mitchell 
might also be leaving soon, thus necessitating nev; signatures 
if a complaint against AMPI were to be filed at a later date; 
and stated that dairymen were big political contributors. 

Mr. Sarbaugh further informed me that at the January 27, 1972 
meeting, AMPI counsel were again told by him that prefillng 
negotiations were not entered into if there were genuine issues 
of dispute and that profiling negotiations were designed to 
settle matters where defendant V7ished to consent fully to the 
relief requested; that Mr. Sarbaugh told AMPI counsel that 
there V7as no commitment to negotiate for sixty days and that 
whenever, in his view, there V7as a slowdo^vm in negotiations, he 
would recommend terminating them even if sixty days had not 
expired; and that AJIPI counsel then stated that they thought 
that there was sufficient agreement to warrant prefiling 
negotiations. Mr. Sarbaugh informed me that, based on the 
above conference, he did not believe that M'Pl intended to 



7985 



consent to all the relief rcciuested in the complaint and that 
ho felt that A11PI might intend to use the prefilinp. ncnotiation 
period to attempt to block politically the filing of this suit. 

10. Upon receiving the above report from Mr. Sarbaugh, 
I was concerned that there were genuine issues of fact and 
law in dispute betr^i/een the Government and Af^I, that AMPI 
counsel v;ere not in fact willing to consent to all the relief 
the Government felt necessary, and that AMPI counsel might not 
intend to use the sixty days to negotiate in good faith. 
Accordingly, I directed the staff to prepare a proposed form 
of depree to be delivered to Al^I counsel by the close of 
business on Friday, January 28, 1972, and to. instruct A1>1PI 
counsel to advise the Antitrust Division by the close of 
business on Monday, January 31, 19 72, whether it would consent 
in principle to the basic prohibitions in the proposed decree; 
otherwise, the complaint V70uld be filed on February 1, 1972, 
which was my penultimate day in office as Assistant Attorney 
General. On Monday afternoon, January 31, 1972, I was informed 
by Mr. Sarbaugh that AMPI counsel stated that A1-1PI could not 
agree in principle to the prohibitions in our consent decree; 
that AMPI's president had not received a copy of the proposed 
judgment until Monday morning; and that AMPI could not resolve 
in one day all the problems raised by the proposed judgment. 

In consequence, I directed that the suit be filed on Tuesday 
morning, February 1, 1972. 

11. Except for the communications with Attorney General 
Mitchell described above, to the best of ray recollection and 
and belief, I did not at any time have any direct or indirect 
communication with anyone in the Uliite House, the Republican 
National Concnittce, any fund raiser for President Nixon, or 
any fund raiser for any political committee or' other organi- 
zation, rc]ating to the investigation of or suit against i..'.''l, 



7986 



or rc'lnLinf. to any direct or indirect political contributions 
by nny ap,ricultural coopcrativo. In particular, I had no 
communications relating to such matters with Messrs. Herbert 
Kalmbach, John Dean, Gordon Strachan, Charles Colson, H. R. 
Haldeman, John Erlichman, or any persons acting under their 
directions . 

12. To the best of my recollection and belief, I did not 
at any time have any direct or indirect communications from 
Attorney General Mitchell, or from anyone acting under his 
direction, relating to any direct or indirect political contri- 
butions by any agricultural cooperative. ' 

13. In making the decision to file suit against AMPI, as 
described above, I exercised my authority as Assistant Attorney 
General to authorize the filing of a complaint, signed by the 
Attorney General, whenever I determined that prefiling negoti- 
ations were not appropriate because there were significant 
issues in dispute betv/een the parties. To the best of my 
recollection and belief, I did not communicate with Attorney 
General Mitchell about the proposed A>tPI suit after January 22, 
1972. Specifically, to the best of my recollection and belief, 
I did not inform him of my decision to terminate prefiling 
negotiations and order the filing of the AMPI complaint, as 
hereinabove described. 

lA. I deny that I directed the investigation of AMPI or 
the filing of the suit against AMPI for any improper purpose. 
The investigation of AMPI was initiated solely as a result 
of the independent decision of the Antitrust Division pursuant 
to its obligations to enforce the antitrust laws of the United 
States. My sole reason for directing that the AMPI suit be 



7987 



filed was to prevent and restrain what appeared from our 
Investigations to be serious violations by AJ^PI of the anti- 
trust laws. 



Subscribed and sworn to before 
me a Notary Public in and for 
Cook County, Illinois, this 

/ f r/^ day of December, 1973. 

My commission expires 



RICHARD v/. McLaren . 

\ \ 



7988 



U.S. Senate Select Committee 
on Presidential Campaign Activities 

AFFIDAVIT 



I, Ben E. Morgan, reside at 7608 Parkview Circle, Austin 
Texas. I am employed by Community National Bank, Austin, Texks 
as President. I have been employed by Community National Bank 
n^n^ H ^^""^ ^^""^^ °^ ^970, and I am familiar with the bank's 
procedures for processing checks negotiated at this bank. 

on td ?r^ examined copies of the checks described below, drawn 
Au J?n ^r i""* °£ Jacobsen and Long, Citizens National Ba^k of 
Austin, Austin, Texas, account number 36-263-8, that were 
presented to Community National Bank for negotiation on the 
fnH^|-i«« tV ^^*? ^^® possible exceptions of checks #1537 
^pntfon ?>. ^""^ determined, based upon markings and endorse- 
this bank ^^^P^^^' *h^^ all of the checks werl cashed by 

fpn.ii*^°''§'^ ''^!^^! ^^^537 and #1538 are devoid of this bank's 
tellers marking that would normally appear on their face if 
casLr;: ?^'^"^^ I conclude that they too must have beln 
thK ln> i a"^,,^a^le to locate any depository account (s) in 
this bank for Mr. Jacobsen, Mr. Long or their spouses during 
the period February I970. i^^u^et, uuixng 



Check # 



1537 
1538 
1835 
1836 
1919' 
1920 
2229' 
2230 



Amoun t 

$ 3,000.00 
2,000.00 
4,250.00 
5,750.00 
4,250.00 
5,750.00 
2,250.00 
2,750.00 



Date of 
Check 

2/2/70 

2/2/70 

7/24/70 

7/24/70 

9/9/70 

9/9/70 

2/15/71 

2/15/71 



Date 
Negotiated 

a/2/70 

2/2/70 

8/6/70 

8/6/70 

9/9/70 

9/9/70 

2/16/71 

2/16/71 



Endorsed 

by 

Jake Jacobsen 
Joe E. Long 
Joe R. Long 
Jake Jacobsen 
Joe R. Long 
Jake Jacobsen 
Joe R. Long 
Jake Jacobsen 



Sworn to and subscribed before me 
im — ^<^^ day °f '^^y^^J^ . 



^^2_^ 




lota^Pura 

My Commission expires: 



Editor's nnhg; Only check No. 1919 
Is published. The other checks were 
previously entered as Jacobsen 
exhibits 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 
20 in Book 15. 



7989 



1919 



PAY TO THe 
ORDER OF_ 



(g^lTIZENS NATIONAL BANK ; 

'~" " ,.; - September 9 ic> 70 
JOE R. LOff<t|/r,Q"-.. , ':- ^, ^4,250.00 



Four Thous and Two Hundred Fifty and no/lOO-r 

SEP 1 (970 



_ OOLCARS 



T-felf 



-M ^n.rAl%h^. 



) i:iiitl"'a3E.7': 3E.-2&3 fl"' 



p^- 



/0000UJ5000/ 






'-:r;v: 



7990 




CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK = 



January 8, 1974 



I, John Parker, reside at 7102 Grand Canyon, Austin, Texas. I am 
employed by The Citizens National Bank of Austin, Austin, Texas, as 
Cashier. I have been employed by The Citizens National Bank of 
Austin since August, 1970, and I am familiar with the bank's pro- 
cedures for processing checks negotiated at this bank. 



On January 7, 1974, I met Mr. Annunzio Chinni, a properly identified 
member of the Staff of the United States Senate Select Committee on 
Presidential Campaign Activities. 



I have examined copies of the checks described below, that were 
drawn on Account Number 36-263-8, scribed Jacobsen and Long, and have 
made the following determination based upon bank markings and 
endorsements: 



Check # 



Dated 



Amount 



1442 


12-17-69 


$2000.00 


1443 


12-17-69 


3000.00 


1485 


1-8-70 


1000.00 


1486 


1-8-70 


1000.00 


1608 


3-18-70 


1725.00 


1609 


3-18-70 


1275.00 


2710 


11-10-71 


2750.00 


2711 


11-10-71 


2250.00 



Date Cashed 

12-17-69 

12-17-69 

1-8-70 

1-8-70 

3-18-70 

3-18-70 

11-10-71 

11-10-71 



Endorsed By 

Bob A. Lilly 
Bob A. L