CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

June 13, 1967

Page 15671

Mr. STENNIS. ... The committee held 30 meetings after the testimony had been given in formal meetings, besides having discussions elsewhere. Those meetings lasted from 2 to 5 hours, with full attendance most of the time. I mention this to show that this is serious business. This information is detailed and hard to get at. So the committee very carefully considered all of these facts. They are intermixed and intermingled, and they crisscross in a hundred different ways. But I think we have followed them down to the ultimate.

I shall take a minute more to read the figures from page 25 of the report:

From the proceeds of the 7 fund-raising events from 1961 through 1965 and the contributions from the 1964 political campaign, Senator Dodd or his representatives received funds totaling at least $450,273. From these funds, Senator Dodd authorized the payment of at least $116,083 for his personal purposes.

That was the conclusion of the two man subcommittee as related in detail to the full committee and fully proved to our satisfaction. That appears on page 25 of the report.

I continue to read from page 25

The payments included Federal income tax, improvements to his Connecticut home, club expenses, transfers to a member of his family, and certain other transportation, hotel, restaurant and other expenses incurred by Senator Dodd outside of Connecticut or by members of his family or his representatives outside of the political campaign period. Senator Dodd further authorized the payment of an additional amount of at least $45,233 from these proceeds

This refers to the political money collected.

I continue to read:

Senator Dodd further authorized the payment of an additional amount of at least $45,233 from these proceeds for purposes which are neither clearly personal nor political. These payments were for repayment of his loans in the sum of $41,500 classified by Senator Dodd as "political- personal" and $3,733 for bills for food and beverages.

That same subcommittee first, and the full committee later, found that the expenditure of $45,233 of this money was questionable and found that these funds were personal-political and were used to repay loans and even to pay for food.

So that, Members of the Senate, is a very significant part of this report. I think the committee can assert with confidence that the figures of $116,083 for personal purposes and $43,233 classified as political-personal are indeed conservative and are actually based on evidence admitted at the hearings.

Members of the Senate, these facts are not in dispute.

The conclusions and the purposes are in dispute, but these facts are largely admitted in these stipulations by Senator DODD and the committee.

From all the evidence of Senator DODD's direct and indirect control of the organization and administration of the several fund-raising events conducted from 1961 through 1965, from the recurring patterns of notice and so forth to the public of the purpose of each of these events, and notwithstanding this notice, the conversion to his personal purpose of substantial parts of the proceeds from each fund-raising event, as well as from funds contributed to his election campaign, there emerges an inescapable conclusion that unfortunately the Senator from Connecticut deliberately engaged in this course of conduct to divert to his own use funds over which he held only a trustee or fiduciary control.

There is another item here that I have not discussed, and that is the so-called double billing. That item is going to be discussed in detail by others.

The committee made a very careful examination of these matters, Members of the Senate, and I have here a statement about them. These duplicate travel payments are covered on page 23 of the committee report, and I will now read that in the RECORD. It reads:

On seven occasions from 1961 through 1965, Senator Dodd while traveling on official Senate business, paid for by the Senate, also received substantially equivalent expense reimbursement for the same transportation from private groups for his appearance as a speaker at various events (pp. 746, 747, 863-865, Hgs.).

The trips were to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in March 1961; West Palm Beach, Florida, in March 1961; San Francisco, California, in June 1961; Miami, Florida, in August 1962; Seattle, Washington, in June 1963; Tucson, Arizona, in February 1965; and Los Angeles, California, in March 1965. Senator Dodd received reimbursement of travel expenses from private sources for each trip prior to payment by the Senate for the same expenses. Senator Dodd received travel expense payment from a private source for the 1961 San Francisco trip prior to his travel (pp. 863-865, 1003-1014. Hgs.).

Senator Dodd's former bookkeeper, Michael O'Hare, testified that during his employment it was his responsibility to bill the private groups, before whom Senator Dodd appeared as a speaker, for travel expenses and other fees (pp. 746, 747, 748, Hgs.). He testified that in doing so he acted at the express direction of Senator Dodd (pp. 746, 747, Hgs.). O'Hare also testified that two of the seven trips involving duplicate payments were taken prior to his employment (p. 746). The duplicate payments from private sources were deposited in Senator Dodd's personal checking account in Washington, D.C. O'Hare testified that Senator Dodd's Senate travel vouchers were prepared by the subcommittee staffs (p. 747, Hgs.).

Senator Dodd testified that he did not authorize O'Hare nor anyone else to bill twice and that the double billings were the result of sloppy bookkeeping (pp. 832, 834, Hgs.). It was stipulated that on at least six other trips, which were nonofficial, Senator Dodd received and used travel expenses payments paid by both his political campaign funds and by private sources (p. 938, 954, 996, 997, 1015-1018, Hgs.). The trips were to Atlantic City, New Jersey, in August 1964; Los Angeles, California, in February 1964; Bal Harbor, Florida, in December 1964; San Francisco, California, in June 1964; Tyler, Texas, in September 1963; and Claremont, California, in February 1964.

Two of the seven trips were taken prior to the employment of O'Hare, as shown on pages 746 and 834 of the printed hearings. It is impossible to associate the duplicate payments with O'Hare alone. Although Senator DODD claims, as he indicated on page 834 of the printed hearings, that O'Hare's inefficiency was the cause of these double payments, O'Hare testified without contradiction that both Senator DODD'S and his accountant were pleased with O'Hare's bookkeeping and that O'Hare received substantial raises in salary throughout the 4½ years of his employment by Senator DODD.

O'Hare's record of service and position and salary is shown on page 1094 of the printed hearings and substantiate his testimony.

The staffs of the committee or subcommittees for which Senator DODD performed travel prepared vouchers for travel for payment by the Senate, not O'Hare.

These vouchers are reproduced on pages 1023 through 1026 of the printed hearings.

There is no evidence that O'Hare prepared any of these vouchers.

As I have already read from the committee report, O'Hare testified, as shown on pages 746, 747, and 748 of the printed hearings, that Senator DODD directed him to bill twice. Senator DODD denied doing so, as shown by pages 832, 833, and 837 of the printed hearings. But O'Hare also testified, as shown on page 747, without contradiction, that at Senator DODD's direction he requested the staff director of the Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee to arrange for payment for travel expenses by private organizations for the 1961 San Francisco trip under the sponsorship of that subcommittee.

Senator DODD's signature does appear on six of the nine vouchers, as shown on pages 1003 through 1020 of the printed hearings, indicating that he should have known of these payments when he signed. The other three voucher payments were through a credit card. and the airline billed the Senator direct.

There is testimony from O'Hare, as shown on page 730 of the hearings, that Senator DODD did take a personal interest in his books.

Mr. O'HARE. He took a great personal interest in his personal finances. As far as the books as such goes, why, occasionally, he would ask to see them or inquire of me as to whether or not they were up to date, and was I keeping them in good order.

Mr. FERN. And at any time did he give you any reason to believe that you were not keeping them in good order?

Mr. O'HARE. No sir. On the contrary.

I have not yet gone into detail on the subject of use of the removed documents.

I intended to do so at the beginning of my remarks. This matter originated by Senator DODD's files being rifled by some of his then former employees, not including O'Hare at the time. This is something that I certainly do not approve of, nor does any other member of the committee.

The files had already been rifled and were in the hands of newspaper columnists. We did not have copies of those sheets. We assisted Senator DODD, at his request, in getting copies for him, because we thought he was entitled to them.

We never based any charges or got the case up, so to speak, against Senator DODD based upon those stolen papers. We stayed away from them as evidence in the case. This case is based on stipulations. It is based upon sworn testimony of the witnesses, taken in Senator DODD's presence and in the presence of his counsel, where they had the right of cross-examination, and upon a few documents that were admitted in open hearing.

The complaint is made here about certain loans and trips that we could not have found out about without the use of the stolen papers. These are the facts about that matter. I have already said that as a lawyer, and as anyone with commonsense, I could see that this matter was getting into the loan picture; and I told the chief counsel to develop everything he could about the loans – good or bad. We were trying to get at those facts. I was trying to get at them through Senator DODD, the same way, when he was being examined.

The five items about loans and travel, which were found in these papers, are covered in the stipulations. There was no objection to including the items. They have been agreed to, and I will identify them later. Thus the five items about which complaint is now made are covered in the numerous stipulations that have been agreed to as being the facts in the case, and have been in the record all this time.

Now, a word about these employees. I believe that with one exception – and I will state it – virtually everything in their testimony is either admitted or agreed to or substantiated over and over again.

The exception is Mr. O'Hare. Mr. O'Hare, a young man, was not one of the original people who rifled these files. He was still employed there and, as I recall, did not know anything about it for some time, but he finally got into it; and I believe that, within itself, was a wrong. I have heard the testimony of many people who had done things wrong, and I do not suppose I have ever heard testimony of anyone who never had committed a wrong. After following him closely all the way through his testimony, checking on him in every way that counsel and I could, comparing what he said to us about dozens and dozens and dozens of matters and finding them as he said they were, testifying as he did in open hearing – under terrific pressure, naturally, because of the subject matter – and with the background of our checkup on all these other things, his testimony about his keeping of these travel records was very convincing. Of course, it was. Otherwise, six out of six men would not have based a charge such as this on any of his testimony.

I frankly state this to the Members of the Senate, because it is a part of the proof in this matter on the double billing. His testimony is a link in it with reference to Senator DODD's knowing. This young man – I am not making any excuses for him, and I do not excuse him – finally joined with reference to taking those files.

But that really was not the question before us. The question was, what does this testimony establish? I have told the Senate.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. STENNIS. I have asked others not to interrupt me. I will yield for questions when I finish, Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PROXMIRE in the chair). The Senator declines to yield.

Mr. STENNIS. I respectfully decline to yield at this point. I am almost through.

The instances of double billing are all identified. I shall read the ones that are stipulated on pages 863 and 865. When I say "stipulated," I do not mean to imply that Senator DODD ever agreed that he told anyone to double bill or that he knew anything about it.

Gentlemen, I have taken a good deal of time. There is much else in this record, but I believe that covers substantially the matters that are before the Senate. There is an abundance of testimony corroborating these matters and explaining further the facts.

It has been said that out of all the matters that have been in the newspapers, the committee passed up the remainder. That is not an accurate statement, Mr. President. The committee really did not pass up any of them. We expressly retained jurisdiction and the right to consider them.

I mention this because of what has been said. Senators will find in the record that that is very clearly covered. Many were not delineated by name because it was considered that it could have been prejudicial to enumerate them in an official report. This committee has made no conclusion with reference to these matters, unless it was a few trivial matters, except the ones that we have brought before the Senate. This report speaks for itself.

On the whole, I feel this way, gentlemen: as an act of generosity, as an act of feeling or compassion, I would like to be more generous than this resolution is, but that is really not the question. There is no constitutional question involved, as I said in the beginning. There is not much dispute about the essential facts. The matter comes down to the question: What is the Senate going to do about it? That question rests right in the lap of everyone.

I know that no one approves, that no one could possibly approve of what this testimony shows as constituting proper conduct for a sitting Member of the Senate.

We have that question now: What are we going to do about it? Unmistakably, a part of our duties, if we do not act, if we do not meet this matter in an affirmative way on this proof with a clear and unmistakable expression of disapproval that carries a meaning more than words, but carries a meaning that will perhaps do good in the future, then I respectfully submit that we fail to meet this issue. We will have thereby approved, whether we intend to or not, like it or not, a pattern of conduct. It is either that, or we are not willing to face the issue. I do not believe the Senate wants to do either one of those things. I could be as forgiving as any Senator. As I say, that is not the issue. If we pass up this matter, then sometime, somewhere, in some way, something big will slip out of this Chamber, and a lesser standard or lesser role or lesser conduct will have to be accepted.

Sad as it is – and I say it is sad for every one of us, for the Senator from Connecticut and for the rest of us – I do not believe we can afford to do it.

For the time being, Mr. President, subject to answering questions if anyone wishes to ask questions, I yield the floor.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I move that the Senate stand in recess for 1 hour.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Louisiana seek the floor?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator from Mississippi yield for a question?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I wish to ask one question. The Senator said he thought it was wrong for Mr. O'Hare to break into Senator DODD's office at night and steal the documents, some 4,000 of them, I understand; and I understood that although he said it was wrong, nevertheless he trusted the man's word and believed him.

Does the Senator believe it is all right for the man to steal from the Government and private organizations, as the man admitted he did, as a conspirator?

Mr. STENNIS. To what does the Senator refer?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. O'Hare was asked under oath, I understand: If you did this on Senator DODD's instructions, he does not have the right to authorize you to steal money from the Government or private individuals and you have been a party thereto; you understand that if he committed a crime so did you and he does not have the right to authorize you to commit a crime; and he said he understood that. Mr. O'Hare alleged himself guilty of stealing not only from his boss, but from private organizations and the Government.

I assume that the Senator would also feel that he should not approve of that course of conduct of stealing from the Government or private organizations.

Mr. STENNIS. Of course, I would not approve of such conduct if it amounts to that. I am against that, as is the Senator from Louisiana.

I merely said this. In weighing all testimony and considering all of the case, the checkups we made, many many matters about which this man told us on that point, we took his testimony.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. But I take it that the Senator would not approve of the man stealing from one's boss.

Mr. STENNIS. Of course not.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The Senator would not approve of stealing from Senator DODD, from the Government, or from private organizations. With regard to at least one of these so-called double billings alleged by Mr. O'Hare, the committee, on thorough study, found it was not a double billing. I have in mind a trip to Los Angeles where Senator DODD spoke to the Junior Chamber of Commerce. In that case, O'Hare was alleging himself guilty of a crime, wrongfully charging both the Government and a private organization, he did not commit. We can forgive him for that crime that he did not commit, but in saying that he did, he lied.

I ask the Senator if he approved of O'Hare lying under oath. That is perjury.

Mr. STENNIS. If I thought he lied under oath as to that point, we would not be here on that point. It obviously answers itself.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. If the Senator became convinced that Mr. O'Hare was not only a burglar against Senator DODD and against the Government and private organizations but also a perjuror, a liar under oath, would the Senator then place the same reliance upon the testimony of Mr. O'Hare?

Mr. STENNIS. Those things will be subject to proof and to anything the Senator wishes to present. A bare statement on that matter by the Senator from Louisiana is not proof.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. If the man contended he committed a crime which had never been committed and when the evidence came forward he still insisted he committed such a crime, would that amount to perjury?

Mr. STENNIS. I did not understand to what the Senator refers. Does the Senator refer to what my reaction would be to the example the Senator tries to give of stealing? I think the thing itself speaks, and that is what I think of the entire case. There is an old Latin phrase in common law covering this case: "The thing itself speaks."

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I would not quarrel with the facts on which the Senator relies; only the interpretation he places on them, and the reliance he places on testimony which I think is perjured and which I think I can establish is perjured testimony.

I wish to say to the Senator that he has my complete admiration. He is one of the great Members of the Senate and he is doing what he thinks his duty requires him to do reluctantly. Ever since I came to the Senate I have had tremendous admiration for the Senator from Mississippi. I applaud the Senator for doing his duty as he sees it.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

[INTERVENING DEBATE OMITTED]

June 13, 1967

Page 15678

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, before I begin, during the call for the quorum the distinguished senior Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] asked me to yield to him in order that he might ask unanimous consent that, as a member of the committee, he might have Mr. William R. Haley, his legislative counsel, sit with him and have the privilege of the floor. The Senator from Kentucky does not seem to be in the Chamber and, therefore, I make the unanimous-consent request in his behalf.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered.

SUPPORT FOR ETHICS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as the vice chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, it is my privilege to follow the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the committee, in supporting the committee's recommendations for the adoption of the resolution of censure now before the Senate.

It is not my intention to duplicate the well-expressed and clear statement of explanation that the chairman has just presented, other than to say, without reservation, that his views, as indicated by my signature on the committee report, have my unqualified concurrence.

As the ranking Republican on our committee, I feel I should begin by reminding the Senate of the nonpolitical nature of the committee's composition and conduct of its affairs. I believe that I can attest without hesitation to the political impartiality of our participation in the events which ultimately led to the censure resolution that is before us today. Most Members of the Senate will recall that the resolution which established the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct provided that the committee consist of six members of the Senate, of whom three shall be selected from members of the majority party and three shall be selected from members of the minority party. The wisdom of this provision is apparent from the balanced and forthright manner in which the committee has approached its responsibilities.

When the committee organized itself, it selected a chairman from among its majority party members and a vice chairman from among the minority party members. No decision of consequence has been made without a complete agreement between the chairman and the vice chairman.

At one of the first meetings of the committee, all members pledged themselves to undertake the tasks which the Senate has assigned to them without reference to party affiliation. In every subsequent meeting or conference, every member present participated fully in expressing his views with that pledge in mind.

Just as the committee membership is bipartisan, the committee determined that the staff would be nonpartisan. Initially, in selecting the chief counsel, and later in approving the selection of the other members of the committee staff, we looked solely for professional ability and objectivity.

To this date, I do not believe that any member of the committee even knows how any staff member has voted in any elections.

Some outsiders who are not familiar with the functioning of our committee have indicated a belief that the committee may have been influenced by motives other than the maintenance of the integrity of the Senate. Let me state, Mr. President, that there has never been any outside influence exerted on the committee, either to take, or not to take, any specific course of action, either in the investigation of Senator DODD or on the handling of any other matters before the committee. Our colleagues in the Senate have been especially restrained and circumspect in avoiding what might have even appeared to be a suggestion to the committee, or to any of its members, as to how committee affairs should be conducted. Likewise, no evidence has been brought to my attention of the exertion of any pressure from any other channels, political or otherwise. The innuendo that the committee may have been influenced by Communist sympathizers in its action in the Senator DODD matter is so patently ridiculous as to be unworthy of an answer.

Not being a lawyer, I cannot readily cite legal authority and precedent for the various rights and privileges that were conferred upon Senator DODD by the committee, both during its conferences with him and throughout the hearings which it held. However, as a Senator I think I have a fairly well developed sense of fairness and of what is right, and this has convinced me that the committee conducted its investigations and its hearings in such a way as to give Senator DODD every opportunity to present his case freely and in its most favorable light. And, of course, as Senators know, in addition there are three of the six members of the committee who are lawyers, and one of the three, our chairman, has had a broad experience and a distinguished record as a judge in his own State. To the extent that the concept of fair play needs to be translated into legal privilege, I am sure my lawyer colleagues saw that all these requirements were satisfied.

Immediately after being organized, the committee began at once to write committee rules of procedure, and on February 2, 1966 – prior to the initiation of the investigation of Senator DODD – these rules were adopted. The rules for the conduct of committee hearings appear to be eminently fair to anyone who might someday appear before the committee as the subject of an investigation. Among other things, the rules provided that wherever possible, the hearings will be open to the public, that a witness might be accompanied by counsel of his own choosing, and that the record of his testimony be made available to him.

In addition, the rules permitted a person who is the subject of an investigation to submit questions to the committee for the cross-examination of all witnesses, and prohibits the operation during a hearing of cameras, outside microphones, or other distractions or harassments. When the committee was confronted by the probability that a hearing would have to be held, these rules were again revised and modified to insure even greater fairness to all parties concerned. Senator DODD, as will any other person who may in the future come before the committee, was further permitted to cross-examine all witnesses and to exercise that right, at his discretion, through his counsel. Senator DODD was also permitted to offer the testimony of witnesses and evidence on his own. The net effect of these liberalizations of our rules, I feel, was to allow Senator DODD every possible opportunity to avoid the emotionally trying ordeal of prolonged public hearings.

The early efforts of the distinguished chairman and myself to get the facts before the committee without the necessity for lengthy and embarrassing hearings, eventually ripened into a stipulation as Senators have been told. While this agreement between the committee and Senator DODD as to many of the facts did not obviate the necessity for hearings, it shortened them considerably.

Much of the basis of the censure resolution rests upon these admissions of facts by Senator DODD, but I want to emphasize that at no point was any compulsion ever exerted on Senator DODD to force him to enter into these stipulations. He and his counsel were given ample time to review the proposed agreement at considerable length and they did so; and his counsel, with his acquiescence, signed the stipulation as a completely voluntary act.

The committee viewed its assignment as a fact-finding exercise. Until we could find the facts, we could not possibly inform Senator DODD precisely what he was going to be faced with at the hearings. Therefore, considerably in advance we did provide Senator DODD with detailed notice of the matters to which he would be expected to respond. First, since we were looking into charges relating to his conduct, we wanted to benefit as fully as possible from his own explanations before the hearings were held. Second, we constantly adjusted and stretched out our program in order that he might have as much time as necessary to develop and organize his position. The Senate is aware that it is nearly 18 months since this began.

As a further indication of the committee's interest in getting all the facts before it pro and con, we made available to Senator DODD the committee's subpoena power so that he would be able to compel the attendance of whatever witnesses he chose.

In line with the committee's conception of its role as a fact finder, committee counsel was instructed to collect and present to Senator DODD all of the relevant facts, whether favorable or unfavorable. Neither the committee nor our counsel himself conceived of the counsel's role as a prosecutor. Someone had to assume the burden of the first move, and since the initiative was in the committee's hands, it fell to the committee counsel to be first to examine witnesses and present evidence. That he accepted his role as a fact finder is revealed by the names of several of the witnesses he called – Moriarty, Powers, McNamara, Barbieri, and Sullivan. Everyone knew before they were called that these witnesses would be favorably disposed toward Senator DODD.

Senator DODD was not required by the committee to appear as a witness, or to testify. At all times, the committee respected his right not to incriminate himself. Of course, he did appear, but as a result of his own choice.

At the time that the allegations against Senator DODD were first made public, the committee learned of the unauthorized removal of about 4,000 papers from Senator DODD's office. Because of the circumstances under which the documents were taken, and the consequent disrupting influence on the orderly conduct of the Senator's business, the committee decided that it would not make use of the papers in the determination of the facts relating to Senator DODD's conduct.

Shortly thereafter, Senator DODD expressly requested that the committee obtain for him copies of each of the documents which had been taken from his office. The committee honored Senator DODD's request and, having obtained copies from the Department of Justice, had copies of these copies made available and given to him. Although a duplicate set was retained in the committee files, none of the papers were used in the conduct of the investigation, nor were any of them offered or received as evidence in the hearings. There were certain documents from Senator DODD's files used in the Klein or first phase of the investigation. These were provided to us by the Senator himself. Thus, the privilege which the committee attaches to a Senator's correspondence and records was respected. This policy decision by the committee obviously inured very greatly to Senator DODD's advantage.

By the time of the second series of hearings, which were concerned with Senator DODD's personal and political finances, the committee had gained much practical experience in the determination of what types of documents it would admit as evidence. The committee believed that a high level of authenticity could be established if persons who had knowledge of the facts in issue should testify in person. For this reason, the committee preferred not to accept any written statements, sworn or otherwise, unless a witness was unavailable. The deposition of Sullivan, Senator DODD's representative in Hartford, Conn., for example, was ordered only after a certificate had been received from Sullivan's doctor affirming that Sullivan should be excused from appearing in Washington for reasons of health. The only other exception to the admission of written statements in lieu of witnesses in the financial hearings, was made for the 400 affidavits offered by Senator DODD's counsel filed by persons who stated that their contributions to Senator DODD were a nonpolitical gift. This exception, again, was made for Senator DODD's sake because of the difficulty of taking testimony from such a large number of persons.

As is stated in the committee's report, "Hearsay evidence was limited and assigned appropriate probative value." Information gained from hearsay was held at a minimum; nevertheless, the committee saw no necessity to completely prohibit hearsay, for the six members of the committee felt that they could individually evaluate what degree of credibility should be assigned to such testimony. All of the members of the committee have had broad experience with Senate hearings and are capable of determining how much of a witness's statements can be relied upon.

Moreover, the committee membership includes three lawyers, two of whom had been judges. As a matter of fact, no single fact based on hearsay alone was accepted on its face by the committee.

Prior to the first hearings, Senator DODD informed the committee that whenever he appeared as a witness he would submit to examination by members of the committee only and not by the committee's counsel. This request was honored at both hearings.

Almost from the outset, the committee was faced with repeated questions raised by Senator DODD concerning the jurisdiction of the committee and its methods of procedure. The most important of these questions was Senator DODD's contention that the committee lacked authority to make any investigation into his finances. When each one of these contentions were made, the committee afforded Senator DODD and his counsel all opportunity to raise every possible point in support of their arguments in a closed meeting of the committee. The issue of jurisdiction was raised several times by Senator DODD's counsel, and ruled upon by the committee on three occasions, they having decided in each of those three cases that it did, in fact, have jurisdiction.

One of the characteristics which distinguished the hearings by our committee was the respect and courtesy that were displayed by the committee and its staff toward all witnesses.

Upon completion of all hearings, the members of the committee held at least 10 meetings to deliberate on the findings, conclusions, and possible recommendations in the investigation. All of the members of the committee participated in almost every one of these meetings. Basic decisions were referred by the chairman to the committee for a vote. In each case, the vote was unanimous. Members themselves read and reread the various drafts of the report many times and contributed many suggested substantial language changes of their own. I think it would be fair to say that members of the committee wrote and rewrote the various drafts of the report many times, so that the resulting report is truly a committee product rather than merely a staff-written document.

From an examination of the several matters which I have selected to illustrate the committee's fairness to Senator DODD, I am sure the Senate will reach the conclusion that the committee has, in its desire to be completely fair to him, literally bent over backward for the benefit of the Senator from Connecticut. Aside from the collective sense of fairness and rightness which marked the committee's deliberations, all members recognized throughout that they were setting precedents for the future operations of the committee. This, therefore, made them doubly cautious in making sure that Senator DODD would not be handicapped in any way in presenting a response most favorable to his point of view.

As I said to begin with, I have not been educated in the law, but I have had some practical exposure to the law, both as a juror and, not the least lately, as a legislator. It strikes me that our hearings were probably more fair than those in many courts, and obviously more fair than most congressional hearings.

The chairman has spoken of the collection and use of the various moneys by Senator DODD through a program of seven fund-raising affairs, and a political fund-raising campaign, from 1961 through 1965. In explaining the committee's findings and conclusions as to the

disposition of these funds, the chairman observed that they decided, from the evidence, that Senator DODD had authorized the payment of at least $116,083 for his personal purposes.

It was also noted by the chairman that Senator DODD further authorized the payment of an additional amount of at least $45,233 from these proceeds for purposes which seemed to be neither clearly personal nor clearly political. It falls to me, now, to elaborate on the succinct explanation provided by our distinguished chairman with respect to the allocation of these funds.

From the facts provided at the hearings, the committee had before it a clear and complete explanation of at what time and for what purposes the various expenditures of the political funds were made. Most of these facts were contained in the detailed schedules of payments which were attached as appendixes to the principal stipulation between Senator DODD and the committee.

The stipulation did not recite, however, all of the purposes of the many loans which Senator DODD repaid from political funds. In his own testimony, chiefly in answer to questions asked by the chairman, Senator DODD provided his recollections of the purposes for which most of the remaining loans were made. In effect, then, the record of the use of some $450,000 of political funds was based on Senator DODD'S own admissions.

From this record, members of the committee proceeded to allocate all of the payments as being either for a personal or political purpose. Each individual item of payment shown in the various schedules and testimony in evidence was reviewed and discussed in detail. As our study proceeded, it became apparent that the information we had of the use of some of these payments was not exact or complete enough to support a definitive determination as to whether the purpose was political or personal. We, therefore, established a category to which the chairman referred, called the gray area. The gray area contained figures which could not clearly be defined as being either conclusively political or conclusively personal, although what information we did have was based almost entirely on Senator DODD'S testimony.

In making this final allocation, we developed a series of criteria which was based upon our own experience as office seekers, officeholders, and Senators. I should like to recite the principal criteria.

All loans which were used to pay income taxes we decided were personal. The money to repay loans which were taken out to pay income taxes, we decided were personal.

All moneys to repay loans which were taken out to cover personal expenses as identified in the stipulation we decided were personal.

The cost of all air transportation provided to Senator DODD and to members of his staff between Washington, D.C., and New York City or the State of Connecticut we regarded as political.

Obviously, we did not include in our totals any of the travel costs of trips made to a State other than New York or Connecticut in which the Senator made a speech, nor did we include the expenses involved in the six trips for which Senator DODD received repayment from private sources as well as reimbursement of his personal account from a political campaign fund.

The cost of air transportation provided to members of Senator DODD's family between Washington, D.C., and New York City or the State of Connecticut during the period of Senator DODD's 1964 political campaign was also regarded as political.

The cost of air transportation to Senator DODD, members of his family and his staff to locations other than in the State of Connecticut, with the exceptions referred to above, was considered to be purely personal.

Those oil credit card purchases by Senator DODD or his employees which could be related to any political purpose were regarded as legitimate political purchases. On the other hand, such purchases by members of Senator DODD's family, outside of the period of his political campaign, were determined to be personal. Railroad transportation for travel not involving Connecticut was similarly regarded as a personal expense, on the same basis as we had allocated the airline transportation.

All of the hotel and restaurant expenses of Senator DODD and his staff in Connecticut were labeled as political and campaign expenses. On the other hand, classified as personal were hotel and restaurant expenses of Senator DODD and his staff at locations other than in Connecticut and dues and house charges payable to the several clubs to which Senator DODD belonged, no matter where they were located.

Payments to the Senate restaurant and to Schneider's Liquor Store in Washington appeared to contain elements of both political and personal purposes and were, therefore, included in the gray area which were described in the hyphenated phrase "personal-political." Based on Senator DODD'S own testimony in which he coined the phrase "personal-political," at least four loans were similarly treated.

With the facts before it and the criteria it developed, the committee allocated payments in the following amounts: From the net proceeds of the 1961 fund-raising dinner, all of which were deposited in Senator DODD's personal bank account, the payment of $33,000 for general, household, and personal expenses was considered as personal and not disputed; $625 was paid from the 1963 District of Columbia reception for personal purposes and included such items as Congressional Country Club charges, limousine service to a race track, and motel accommodations for some of Senator DODD's personal friends.

Payments from the testimonial for U.S. Senator THOMAS J. DODD bank account totaling about $5,700 were similarly determined to be personal and included such items as air transportation to Florida, Chicago, San Francisco, Texas, and other places by Senator DODD and members of his family during 1963 and 1964. Other payments from this account include country club charges and hotel bills for Senator DODD and members of his family. About $4,000 was expended from campaign bank accounts for such purposes as airline trips to Jamaica, Curacao, Miami, and London by Senator and Mrs. Dodd. Hotel and club bills were also paid out of this account. Propane gas service charges for Senator DODD's Connecticut residence were charged to this account.

Over $28,000 in political funds were used by Senator DODD to retire loans that had been made directly or indirectly to pay his Federal income taxes.

Another $27,000 of political money was applied to the repayment of loans made from late 1959 through 1962 for personal expenses.

Senator DODD diverted over $9,000 in political funds to payments for improvements to his Connecticut home. He gave his son $4,900 out of political campaign funds.

And so the list goes. I will not take the time of Members of the Senate to spell out in detail each dollar of personal expense or personal-political expense. But if any Senator desires further details of this allocation, I will supply them.

May I add that in the allocation of expenses between political and personal purposes, our estimates were on the conservative side, and wherever there was a doubt, we gave the benefit of the doubt to Senator DODD.

For instance, when the committee as a whole decided there was this area we have called the gray area and that it contained $45,233, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. McCARTHY] and I were assigned to go through this sum. We allocated the $45,000 to political, which included some Senate restaurant checks, some liquor bills, and these four loans.

These expenses represented the payment of many bills covering a period of 5 years and the use of at least seven different bank accounts. In addition, certain expenses were paid directly from cash received in connection with Senator DODD's political campaign or his various fund-raising events.

Mr. President, I have not attempted to range over the numerous facets of the committee's investigation. The distinguished Senator from Mississippi, as the chairman of our committee, has done that very ably. But having assisted in a special assignment to scrutinize the "gray area" of unclear expense allocations and recommend their disposition to the committee, I have dwelt at some length on this subject, and now, along with my chairman and the other members of the committee with whom I have the honor to serve, I will do the best I can to respond to any questions Senators may have, closing with the statement again that I completely support the committee's conclusions and recommendations.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield.

Mr. COTTON. Perhaps I missed it, or perhaps it has been pointed out in the report of the committee, but I did not catch, from the Senator's statement, the total of all of the money from all of the dinners that was allocated to political expenses, the total in the gray area, so-called, the questionable items, and the total for personal purposes.

Mr. BENNETT. On page 25 of the report, the Senator will find all of those figures. The total amount received was $450,273; and of this amount, the committee determined that Senator DODD had authorized for personal purposes–

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator will suspend until order is restored. Persons in the gallery will remember that they are guests of the Senate, and refrain from conversation.

The Senator from Utah may proceed.

Mr. BENNETT. From the total amount received, $450,273, Senator DODD authorized the payment of at least $116,083 for personal purposes. Senator DODD further authorized the payment of an additional amount of at least $45,000 from these funds for purposes which were neither clearly political nor personal; those were the gray areas. So out of approximately $450,000 we are left with the total of $116,083 for personal purposes.

Mr. COTTON. The total of the gray area?

Mr. BENNETT. $45,233.

Mr. COTTON. And the total of the political?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, we did not subtract, but if the Senator will add $116,000 and $45,000, the total is about $161,000. When that is subtracted from $450,000, something like $290,000 will remain.

Mr. COTTON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield.

Mr. MILLER. Did I understand the Senator to say that the committee regarded all of the costs of club dues and clubhouse charges as being personal?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. Did the committee take into account the fact that there could have been substantial entertaining of constituents from one's home State, either here in Washington or in Connecticut, and, that being the case, that this might qualify as a political-personal expense?

Mr. BENNETT. To offset that, the committee gave to the Senator as personal all of his expenditures for liquor and all of his expenditures in the Senate Dining Room.

It is necessary to make a more or less arbitrary division of things like that. But speaking for myself, as one member of the committee, I think a man can be a successful Senator without joining a club; and if he chose to join one or more clubs, I assume that it was because he wanted whatever benefits the club could supply to him personally. That is the basis on which I approached this problem.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MILLER. May I continue for a moment?

As I understand it, then, there might have been a recognition that some part of the club expenses would have been political-personal, but inasmuch as all of the Senate restaurant expenditures were allowed, the committee felt that this would be an offset?

Mr. BENNETT. And all of the liquor.

Mr. MILLER. And all of the liquor.

The committee felt that would be an offset, so there would be an equitable allocation of expenses?

Mr. BENNETT. That is the way I approach it.

Did the Senator from Louisiana wish me to yield to him?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Yes, I asked if the Senator would yield.

The Senator says he understands how someone could be excused and understood for entertaining his friends, even at a country club. Would the Senator explain how one can entertain his friends at a country club if he is not a member of it?

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator misunderstood what I said. I said a man could be a Member of the Senate without joining a country club.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Assuming the Senator would like to entertain his constituents at a country club, how could he do so without joining the country club?

Mr. BENNETT. If the Senator has been in Washington as long as I think he has, and has not learned the answer to that question, I am astounded. There are hundreds of lobbyists who would be delighted to invite the Senator and his friends to country clubs to which they belong.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Would it not be better if the Senator did not have to call upon a lobbyist for a favor, in order to entertain his friends at the country club?

Mr. BENNETT. I go back to my original point: A Senator can entertain his friends without going to a country club. There are plenty of restaurants; there are plenty of other places of entertainment. To start on the basis that in order to be a successful Senator and take care of one's constituents it is necessary to have membership in a country club would wipe me out, because I am not a member of any country club in the Washington area.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I am a member of a country club in the Washington area and have not had time to go there in 3 years. The only time I went there, I entertained constituents. If I were a member because I wanted to entertain there, could I not maintain the country club membership for that purpose? The Governor of my State, who is presently in the Senate gallery, might be in town, and I might wish to entertain him at a country club. Does it not occur to the Senator that the fact that I have not used that club for 3 years, anyway, but have kept up my dues, might mean that I could be doing so because on some occasion I might not want to call in a lobbyist, but might wish to entertain someone of some importance in my State at a country club?

Mr. BENNETT. It would be up to each Senator to make his own determination.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The Senator from Utah said it was not necessary to entertain. I quite agree. I suggest to the Senator that it would be quite possible for me to accept the Governor's hospitality in the Governor's mansion and never return the courtesy; but I also suggest to the Senator that there is nothing particularly wrong about maintaining membership in a country club so that I will have some place to take my Governor when he is in town.

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator from Utah will have to come back to his original statement. He said it is not necessary to entertain in a country club. A Senator can entertain in his own home; he can entertain in one of a great many hotels. To pick out this item and say, "This is a necessary political expenditure," does not seem to be particularly appropriate.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I quite agree that it should not be necessary, but it might be a good idea.

Mr. BENNETT. I said that the Senator is free to make his own determination as to whether he wants to entertain his Governor at a country club and is willing to absorb the dues for 3 years so that the club will be available when he wants it. But when we come to the question of whether it is necessary to keep membership in a country club dormant for 3 years with the thought that someday a constituent may be entertained there, that seems to be stretching the point pretty far.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Did it ever occur to the Senator that it might be desirable, when a couple gets married, to send a wedding present, even though the Senator did not know either of the persons? I just happen to think that it is a good idea to send a wedding present, especially if it is a modest one, or even a telegram of congratulations upon their marriage, because they thought enough of me to send an invitation. Might not that help a man to be reelected?

Mr. BENNETT. I am sure the Senator could send a telegram on his Senate telegraphic allowance.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. That is one of the biggest items of my non-reimbursable expense -- communications. After that allowance has become exhausted, with what fund could I send a telegram?

Mr. BENNETT. I do not remember that we, in making our determination, made any judgment of the use by Senator DODD of communications.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield.

Mr. BROOKE. I asked the question of the distinguished chairman of the committee [Mr. STENNIS] as to what test should be applied by the Senate in evaluating the evidence and arriving at a decision. The Senator from Mississippi answered that the test would be left up to the individual Senators.

I now ask the question of the distinguished senior Senator from Utah: What test was applied, if any, by members of the committee in arriving at their findings and recommendation. Some evidence; a preponderance of the evidence; or proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Was any test applied by the members of the committee?

Mr. BENNETT. Since we were not a judicial body, I am sure we did not draw those lines and wonder at what point we moved from one area into the other area.

I would say that it was roughly -- I was going to say the preponderance. However, I would say it was probably beyond a reasonable doubt, because with respect to the Klein phase of the hearings, after we had gone through several days of hearings, we ourselves decided that the evidence we had developed at the hearings left us in doubt. So we did not include the reference to those hearings in our report to the Senate.

With reference to these financial affairs, it seems to me that the situation referred to may be a little academic, because we are dealing here with facts about which there is no doubt. And they were essentially all admitted.

Senator DODD is not accused of a crime. The problem we faced concerned a judgment as to whether these actions brought any disrepute to the Senate or damaged the image of the Senate. It does not matter how we phrase it.

We decided on the basis of the facts available to us that in our opinion that was the effect of the Senator's course of conduct. Because we were not in a strictly judicial capacity, we did not attempt to lay down the usual judicial pattern.

Mr. BROOKE. The charges against Senator DODD and the recommendation for censure are very serious. Although this matter is probably in the nature of a civil rather than a criminal proceeding, nevertheless, the result could be very grave. Certainly the censure of a U.S. Senator cannot be compared with a death sentence. But it could be compared with a life imprisonment sentence, if it were a criminal matter.

Mr. BENNETT. Perhaps I should answer the question by saying that in my opinion the information establishes the basis of the Senate's decision both beyond a reasonable doubt and by the preponderance of the evidence.

Mr. BROOKE. Now, sir, in mentioning the matters which the committee considered to be personal rather than political, one of the matters pertained to the travel of Mrs. Dodd outside of the State of Connecticut, or to Washington, D.C.

It certainly is conceivable that the wife of a U.S. Senator might be invited to travel with him to attend a political function, say, in Chicago, Ill. And it certainly seems that this might be considered a political expenditure or a proper political expenditure rather than a personal-political expenditure.

Although, we are here concerned with Senator DODD -- and this is a most important matter before us at this time -- I am sure that the committee understands, and must have understood, that if we abide by the guidelines set by the committee we are establishing a precedent which the Senate will be bound to follow in the future.

Are we going to follow all of the guidelines which the committee has set forth in its report and which the distinguished senior Senator from Utah has mentioned one by one, such as the country club expenses which were classified as personal rather than political? Will the Senate accept the guideline that the travel of the wife of a U.S. Senator, to a State other than his own is personal rather than political?

Are we going to judge all of these matters as they have been outlined by the committee?

Certainly, this is a matter of grave concern to the Senate, as well as to Senator DODD.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, answering the first example, or responding to it, it seems to me that if the people of Illinois -- and the Senator mentioned Chicago -- felt that Senator DODD's presence was important to them politically, and they invited the wife of Senator DODD they should take care of the expenses.

If the Senator decided he wanted to take his wife along for the ride, then I think that would be his expense.

Mr. BROOKE. Perhaps the political committee might decide that it would be advantageous to have both the Senator and Mrs. Dodd in Illinois at a particular political function.

Mr. BENNETT. If there had been a showing that Senator DODD had, in fact, spent money in his personal travel which had a political relationship, we would have looked at it very carefully and probably thrown it over.

Mr. BROOKE. Then, the committee did not arbitrarily say that travel outside the Senator's own State is a personal expenditure.

Mr. BENNETT. No. We examined every single example.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, I wanted to comment on the question asked by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.

Actually we had $450,273 involved, and there is hard evidence to indicate that in some particular instances, such as improvement to the personal home of the Senator and the payment of income taxes, we had a clear personal use of the money.

Then we would go up and down the scale and try to make judgment as to whether an expenditure was personal, political-personal, or political.

We thought we owed it to the Senator to come in with as precise figures as we could get.

As a matter of fact, we said to our counsel: "Check these out. Put them in each slot, and find out where they belong."

The counsel said: "I can't do it. I don't know."

Then we called on two Senators experienced in the political world and in politics generally. We assigned to them the problem of making this distinction.

They did this. We had them do it for the reason that we thought we ought to come with as precise figures as we could obtain.

However, we find on the edges of each one of these classifications some very great disagreement.

I do not think that the judgment of the subcommittee, coming with an allocation of funds as we did, can set down guidelines for every State and every Senator for all time.

This was done in an effort to come in with as clear an explanation as we could make.

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator, who is an excellent lawyer.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished junior Senator from Kansas for his clarification. I certainly understand that the committee had a Herculean task before it and its members have performed their task well.

I must nevertheless point out that if we are to use these guidelines -- and I know the Senators spent a tremendous number of man-hours working on them -- the guidelines will establish a precedent which Senators will have to follow in the future concerning the question as to what is a political expenditure and what is a personal expenditure.

It seems to me that this is such an important question that the Senate should be aware that there could very well be far-reaching by-products.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I should like to make the additional point, that while the guidelines seem to be drawn rather sharply concerning the travel items, if we found, as I indicated, that Mrs. Dodd had actually gone on a political mission, we did not let the guideline operate. We let the purpose of the trip control.

The guidelines were only used in situations in which there was no obvious political purpose to the trip.

Mr. BROOKE. Then, would it be fair to say that every expenditure stands on its own merits, and that we will judge each expenditure on the basis of purpose of the travel?

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator is correct. Eventually, we get into a gray area in which we do not have complete information as to the purpose of the trip. Those are the areas in which we used the guidelines.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, on page 25 of the committee report it is stated:

From these funds, Senator Dodd authorized the payment of at least $116,083 for his personal purposes.

We have not to this date been accorded an explanation of what these items were.

There is some reference to a few of them. Will the Senator provide us with an itemized statement of what the $116,000 was expended for? If the Senator can provide the details as to why the committee felt that each of these items was for the Senator's personal purposes, would the Senator provide that for the RECORD?

Mr. BENNETT. I shall be very glad to provide a list, bill by bill.

Now, this is not charge by charge, because some of them are statements. The Senator did not pay cash for these services. He allowed the bills to run, and then he paid the statement.

I have the list, Mr. President, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[LIST OMITTED]

Mr. BENNETT. I will quote one or two items as examples. I am quoting from the first page. These are expenditures from the 1963 District of Columbia Committee for Dodd bank account.

Rotunda Restaurant, $59.92, paid through the American Express, for two meals, or two occasions.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Suppose that was for himself and his administrative assistant, to talk Senate business? Would the Senator find that that was necessarily a personal expense?

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator would have to go back a little deeper, to answer that question, but I am sure the answer is in the committee's files.

The Army Athletic Association, football tickets.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Suppose that happened to be for the people who were raising the money for the Senator to try to get him out of debt, and as a matter of good will toward them, he acquired six football tickets?

Is that the Army-Navy game?

Mr. BENNETT. It is.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Suppose he gave these tickets for the Army-Navy game to demonstrate his gratitude to these people because they were working to raise money to try to get him out of the $150,000 debt he had? Would the Senator feel that was a justifiable expense against that testimonial dinner?

Mr. BENNETT. Try this one: C. & P. Telephone Co., telephone service to the Washington residence of Senator DODD. I suppose the Senator will say that perhaps some of his constituents called him collect, and this he paid out of his home telephone bill instead of his office telephone bill.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Why not?

Mr. BENNETT. The point I am trying to make, and I am sure the Senator is trying to make, is that if one wishes, he can excuse every expenditure a Senator makes, including the necessity to buy a new necktie because his present one is a little shabby, and he is going to meet some of his constituents and he does not want to be ashamed. In the end, somebody has to make a subjective decision.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Suppose a man did not have a single necktie and he had to attend a session of the Senate? Might it not be that if he had no other funds to pay for it, he might have to use those funds?

Mr. BENNETT. Limousine service, $60. Charles Town racetrack, for Senator DODD, a son, and staff members. Is that a political expense?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Entertaining the office staff?

Mr. BENNETT. Entertaining the office staff.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. That is a necessary expense, if you want loyal employees. The Senator is in all this trouble right now because he did not have loyal employees. Now read the next one.

Mr. BENNETT. I have never taken my staff to the Charles Town racetrack in a limousine, and I still believe I have loyal employees.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. May I say to the Senator that it has been my privilege to go to the races with my administrative assistant; and while I did not charge it to the Senate, at the same time I realize now, having seen what happened to TOM DODD, that it is very important to have good relations with the administrative assistant.

Mr. BENNETT. There was $28,588 for repayment of loans made to pay his income tax.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Let us discuss that for a moment. The man has $150,000 of debts. For 3 years he is trying to pay off this $150,000 of debts from the money he has coming to him for legal work done previously and from his Senate salary for 3 years. In order to make enough money to pay off that $150,000 -- which is not deductible -- he is going to have to pay taxes on that money. So, did it ever occur to the Senator that perhaps even that item might justifiably be carried against the cost of this campaign, because he had to make that much money in order to pay off this $150,000 -- none of which is deductible?

Mr. BENNETT. Unfortunately, the record fails to reveal an amount of $150,000 directly attributable to campaign losses.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. With regard to the $29,000, is the Senator talking about $29,000 that was paid out of that testimonial fund?

Mr. BENNETT. No. I am talking about a series of loans repaid out of various funds, which loans were created for the purpose of getting money enough to pay income tax.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. All I want to say to the Senator about this matter is that with this man $150,000 in debt, his friends undertook to hold a testimonial dinner, raised some money to try to get the poor fellow out of debt; and the whole purpose of this dinner was not to raise money for a campaign but to try to get the man out of $150,000 of debt for the previous two campaigns.

So when they raised this 60-odd thousand dollars, it would be perfectly proper and perfectly correct to use some of this $60,000, which they raised at this testimonial dinner to help get the man out of debt, to pay his income tax.

You cannot elect a man to the U.S. Senate if he is only one step ahead of the tax collector, and the tax collector is seizing his sound truck, seizing his stationery, seizing his personal account, seizing everything he has to pay off the Government tax.

As a practical procedure, he had every right to pay out of his testimonial money the income tax that he owed and to begin to get out of debt.

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator is arguing, as I understand, that since the Senator has to be in pretty good standing with the Internal Revenue Service in order to get elected, he can charge his income tax to political campaigns.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield.

Mr. McCARTHY. I believe the RECORD should show that this committee did not say that the Senator could not have a testimonial dinner to raise money to pay off income tax or any other personal expense. The wording of our censure resolution has to do with confusion over the purposes of the dinners.

I believe it to be perfectly legal to hold a testimonial dinner or to make some other type of appeal, if those to whom the appeal is made understand that the money is going to be used for personal purposes. Our committee did not say that this was wrong or improper. The charge the committee made has to do with the confusion as to the purposes of the dinners and the manner in which the funds drawn from several dinners were commingled and used.

On the specific question of what was used for personal purposes and what was used for other purposes, it should be noted that we started with a clear case -- payment of the income tax. We moved on from that to expenditures with reference to the dwelling of the Senator. We moved on from that into a somewhat uncertain area.

We attempted to apply four general standards. We perhaps could have said that all of these personal expenditures could be run together, we could have laid it out, and let Senator DODD and his people stipulate what was personal and what was not -- and they were free to do that in any case. Generally they did not respond to what we laid out, or attempt on their own to distinguish between what was personal and what was not. The usual answer was that the personal and the political were run together. They talked about personal-political expenditures and political-personal expenditures.

The committee believed that it should try to make some general distinctions; and we applied, as the vice chairman of the committee has said, a kind of geographical standard -- first as to where the money was spent, in Connecticut or on the way to Connecticut.

We attempted to apply a time standard with reference to actual campaigns, the pre-convention, the convention, the campaign itself, and a post-campaign period.

We attempted to apply a third standard with reference to the purpose for which moneys were spent, as far as we could determine, and for whom it was spent. Necessarily, this moved us into an uncertain area, a gray area, and we are willing to admit to that; we opened all of this up to Senator DODD in the hope that he could make clear distinctions for us. This was the expressed determination on our part.

The fifth standard we applied was that which the Internal Revenue Service uses on these matters, and the Internal Revenue Service does make distinctions, with reference to whether or not a Senator can deduct his fees at a country club. If the Senator from Louisiana wishes to do something about that, and I think he should, he could do it in the Committee on Finance. Internal Revenue makes a clear distinction as to what kind of expenditure for entertainment is personal, as to whether one can buy flowers for constituents and deduct the cost -- or charge it as a political expenditure.

Insofar as we had any basis for applying the rules of the Internal Revenue Service and the distinctions the Service makes between a personal and a political expenditure, we did so. I suppose we need not have tried to make that distinction. However, we thought we were carrying out the mandate in the resolution. We were setting up the committee and we thought we were expected to make a beginning toward laying down general rules of conduct and standards of ethics that we might expect Senators to follow in the future, but at the same time to make those judgments on the basis of the experience of the Senate.

We were careful not to move into areas in which we thought precedents should first be established by rule. We stayed away from the question of referrals. I assume that this is primarily the responsibility of bar associations but could be made subject of a Senate code.

We stayed away from the question of finder fees because we thought if we moved in this area the charge that we were imposing ex post facto rules could be sustained. We tried to move in an area in which the Senate could pass judgment, using only standards we had available, those imposed by Internal Revenue, and those relating to custom, in fund-raising and in campaign financing. We attempted to apply a general standard as to when the money was spent, and as to the purposes for which it was spent.

This is the basis upon which we present the case to the Senate with reference to the first item in the censure resolution. It is within this framework that the Senate should pass judgment on the committee recommendation.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, the first stipulation on page 853 states: 1. Senator Dodd first campaigned for election to the U.S. Senate from Connecticut in 1956. He was unsuccessful. He successfully campaigned for election to that post in 1958. Between 1956 and 1959, Senator Dodd borrowed a total of about $211.000. At the end of 1959 his personal indebtedness was about $150,000.

Would the Senator be willing to agree that that $211,000 which the Senator borrowed was, for the most part -- at least 80 percent of it -- borrowed to pay political expenses?

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator cannot agree to that because we have no evidence. On the contrary

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Did the Senator try to get it?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, and somewhere in the background is my memory of the fact that the Senator gave us out of that experience about a $7,000 political–

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. At the end of 1959 his indebtedness was about $150,000.

Mr. BENNETT. I am sorry. Would the Senator repeat that statement?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The Senator may not have completed his first answer. However, I am speaking about the $211,000 which the Senator owed.

Mr. BENNETT. He borrowed $211,000 between 1956 and 1959. There is no evidence that that was borrowed for political purposes or to repay political debts.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Is the Senator aware that in 1956 he owed virtually nothing when he started running for the Senate? He was virtually debt free.

Mr. BENNETT. Neither this Senator nor the committee has any knowledge of the financial dealings of Senator DODD, nor are we concerned with the period before the 1961 dinner.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Oh, it is enormously important, and that is one of the reasons the committee fell into error. I now begin to understand how the committee could have made this grievous error.

Is the Senator from Utah telling the Senate that the committee did not know that this $211,000 was an indebtedness that the man incurred in those 2 years while he made two unsuccessful campaigns for the U.S. Senate? Now, I begin to understand. Is the Senator saying that the committee did not know that these were political obligations?

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator is correct. I wish to point out to the Senator from Louisiana that the Senator from Connecticut had many opportunities to tell that to the committee, to point it out, and to give details. He appeared as a witness. We met him in executive session many times and he did not give us that kind of information. How could we know?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Now, I begin to understand how there could be such a complete difference of opinion. To this Senator it has been clear all the time.

The man started running for the U.S. Senate in 1956 with no indebtedness. He was virtually debt free. Then, after he ran he lost and he then had a substantial debt. Then, he tried again. By the time he had been elected and paid what he could out of his personal income to pay political expenses, the next statement is made in the committee report that at the end of 1959 his personal indebtedness was $150,000.

Do I understand the Senator to say that the committee did not realize, nor did the Senator realize, that the $150,000 was mostly an indebtedness incurred to become a Senator?

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator is saying that Senator DODD had ample opportunity to make that clear to the committee and failed to do so. I think the committee cannot be charged with ignorance because we began our investigation with 1961 and he had ample opportunity in our discussions to say to us, "I was $150,000 in debt politically so I had to have a dinner to pay that debt." But there was no such evidence coming from the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. As I have said, I now begin to understand why we are so completely at odds on the conclusions we would reach in this case. When the Senator from Connecticut speaks, we will understand this. It may be that the Senator did not know that the committee did not understand this; that he took it for granted the committee would understand this.

We shall now proceed to find out the nature of this indebtedness.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I wish to refer the Senator to page 835, which refers to the point I made this morning about the examination of Senator DODD. The Senator from Utah has already referred to it. The point to which I refer is near the top of the page. In order to

refresh our recollection, the question was propounded by me:

The CHAIRMAN. Now frankly, that is all the information that we have been able to get as the Chairman understands, with reference to these items.

Was not that the beginning of the questioning by the committee on these very loans to which the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Louisiana had been referring?

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator is correct.

Mr. STENNIS. I shall continue to read from page 835.

The chairman said:

Now I think if you possibly can, it would certainly be relevant, and perhaps helpful to you to give more definite information than the date and the amount and the name of the lender.

Does not that question refer to the stipulations that had been put in by the Senator from Connecticut, and he gave us only these items that I have related?

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator is correct. I think there are other figures which are interesting and

which appear a little below that reference on page 835.

Mr. STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. BENNETT (continuing reading) The CHAIRMAN. I meant to ask you, to be certain now that you are not misled, these are listed here, and totaled for the years. For instance, there on appendix 7, it is 1956. that is $14.500 total; 1957 has a $36.000 total. And 1958 has a total here on this list of $90,000; 1959.$70.000.

In other words, the loans were going up every year even though there were only two political campaigns.

Mr. STENNIS. Those were loans which the committee was trying to get the Senator from Connecticut to explain, to his advantage of course, if he could; is that not correct?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. Let me read further from page 835:

The CHAIRMAN. And they total $211,000. and we were not able to develop any of the facts with reference to those loans as to what the money was borrowed for and what it was used for. Certainly we could not complete the record, and that is what we want you to help do. It shows an outstanding balance by the way of $149,000 on January 1,1960.

All Senator DODD would say was: "I think that has practically all been paid now."

Mr. STENNIS. Refreshing the recollection of the Senator from Utah further, does not the record show, on the next page, that we went into one loan, my question did, regarding the George Gildea loan and it was developed that that was $3,800 with reference to a tax matter, I believe

Mr. BENNETT. Income tax.

Mr. STENNIS. Yes, and $1,200 for an automobile.

Mr. BENNETT. That is right.

Mr. STENNIS. And we did not get any other evidence along that line even though we opened it all up; is that not correct?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. This bears out what I was trying to say to the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG], that the committee could not get information as to the reason for, or the source of the

$211,000 worth of loans and, therefore, we could not assume that they were political loans.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. MUSKIE. The committee has identified $116,000 as representing, first, an expenditure. Did this expenditure include any payments on the indebtedness of $150,000 which represented Senator DODD's personal indebtedness at the end of 1959?

Mr. BENNETT. Those expenditures included $28,588 payments on loans created for the purpose of paying income tax.

Mr. MUSKIE. Were those loans included in the $150,000?

Mr. BENNETT. I do not know. I have no way of knowing. The Senator from Connecticut would not supply us that information.

Mr. MUSKIE. In any case, did the committee conclude that any of the $116,000 represented personal expenditures because it was included in the $150,000 indebtedness that was outstanding in 1959?

Mr. BENNETT. Let me back up -- those loans did not include any of the expenditures -- loans outstanding in 1959 -- oh, I now see I have dates.

The first one for $8,000 was made on April 11, 1962. The next one for $3,800 was made on April 13, 1962. The next one was made on December 5, 1963. The next one was made on March 12, 1964. The next one was sometime in April 1964. Thus, none of this $28,588 represented loans that were in existence before April 11, 1962.

Mr. MUSKIE. To put it another way, the $150,000 indebtedness outstanding in 1959 was outside the $116,000 which the committee has identified as personal expenditures; is that not correct?

Mr. BENNETT. That is right.

Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield.

Mr. GORE. Did the $159,000 increase in personal debt operate, in the Senator's mind, as a net increase in indebtedness, or was it incurred in consequence of acquisition of assets?

Mr. BENNETT. This Senator cannot answer that categorically, but he suspects that if we could get all the facts about it, we would find an increase in acquisition of assets, plus probably the cost of living which might have been counted as part of his current income.

Mr. GORE. The Senator says he suspects. He does not know that as a matter of his own knowledge?

Mr. BENNETT. We have no way of knowing. We do not know what that was made up of.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Let me say to the Senator that as I commend the distinguished chairman of the committee, I want also to commend the Senator from Utah, as vice chairman, for doing his duty as he sees it. I am confident that every member of the committee is working to enhance the standards of the Senate. The Senator from Utah is doing his duty as he sees it. Even though I may differ with the conclusion he reaches, I believe that he is one of the great members of this body. His conduct, as far as I am concerned, is absolutely above reproach.

Mr. BENNETT. I appreciate that. If I suddenly discovered that 99 Senators agreed with me completely, I would begin to wonder what was wrong with me.

Mr. BROOKE. Will the Senator from Utah yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BROOKE. We are here concerned solely with private funds, as I understand it. No public funds have been made the subject of any allegations; is that not correct?

Mr. BENNETT. That is right.

Mr. BROOKE. We are then concerned with private funds donated to Senator DODD, through the purchase of tickets or direct contribution. These funds were to be used either for political or personal purposes. Senator DODD has distributed to the Senate affidavits from individuals who say under oath that they intended their contributions to be used by Senator DODD for personal expenditures.

My inquiry is: Did the committee have witnesses who appeared before it, or did the committee have affidavits from witnesses, to the effect that they had made their contributions purely for political purposes. And further, if the answer is in the affirmative, was the committee able to establish whether such contributions were used for personal purposes by Senator DODD?

It seems to me that this is the key question. I do not find in the committee report any statements of witnesses to that effect.

Mr. BENNETT. The committee had to rely largely on letters, newspaper reports, and other public information for its interpretation for the reasons for the dinner. That is where we disagree with Senator DODD. He says these dinners were given with the understanding that he could use the money any way he pleased. He chose to use some of it for political purposes and some of it for personal purposes.

With respect to the 400 affidavits, I am sure that our record will show -- although I do not have it at the tip of my tongue -- the total number of people who attended these dinners. Therefore, the 400 affidavits represent a very small percentage -- well, let us say less than a third of those who attended the dinners. These people were approached by Senator DODD's representatives, or the representatives of his attorney, with a form. They were not given a choice "Will you check off whether this is a political contribution or a personal contribution."

They were in a printed, or at least a produced, form, and they were asked to sign them. If they signed them, they indicated this was to be personal. In some cases, this was 6 or 7 years after the fact.

I am also aware that the people who went out to solicit the signatures for the affidavits realized Senator DODD's problems, and they probably conveyed to the people who were to sign the affidavits the feeling that this was one way that they could help Senator DODD. So it has been my personal feeling that this affidavit was not an example of a free recollection of the situation. It was a very clever means of trying to persuade the people, at no cost or hurt to themselves, to help their friend TOM DODD. Those who did not agree with the language of the affidavit, of course, did not sign it.

We do not know how many affidavits were offered and rejected, or we do not know whether they carefully screened the list of the persons to whom they went to be sure of their signatures.

Mr. BROOKE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield.

Mr. BROOKE. Does the Senator know whether any affidavits were offered and rejected? Was there any evidence before the committee which indicated persons were solicited to sign the affidavits who did in fact refuse to sign them?

Mr. BENNETT. I will check into the committee hearings to see if we can locate it. I think the answer is in there.

Mr. BROOKE. At any rate, the Senator is stating that no witness appeared before the committee who testified that he had contributed his money purely for political purposes?

Mr. BENNETT. That is correct.

Mr. BROOKE. And the only evidence before the committee was in the form of invitations, newspaper clippings, and letters, which indicated that the purpose of these dinners was to raise funds for political use?

Mr. BENNETT. That is correct. The Senator from Utah thinks there is another significant thing, which has not been discussed. If the first testimonial dinner, for example, were really a testimonial dinner to help a man who was in deep personal debt, does not the Senator imagine there would have been people other than political leaders who would have been invited to the program? Does he not think that perhaps town authorities, if they were not members of his own party in Connecticut, would be invited? Does not the Senator think there would be evidence of his friends? The dinner was conceived and managed out of his own office. They had a Republican in there to kind of "sweeten the pot," though he did not come -- Senator Bridges, of New Hampshire, but it just seems to me, if one looks at the makeup of the stickers and the people who performed the various functions in the dinner, he sees they are all political entities.

Mr. BROOKE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. I yield.

Mr. BROOKE. The Senator from Massachusetts certainly understands what the Senator from Utah is saying. As a member of the bar, I have never served on a jury, and I am finding the experience of sitting in the capacity of a juror an unhappy one. What the Senator says is unquestionably the truth. But, on the other hand, it seems to me that the Senate must base its finding on the evidence, not on conjecture, nor on circumstantial evidence that is presented to it. Certainly, there must be a presumption of innocence in favor of Senator DODD. It is my opinion that the burden of proof is upon the Ethics Committee which has submitted the resolution to the Senate for adoption.

I would like to know what evidence the committee has that there were persons who contributed to Senator DODD and who stated to the committee, either verbally or through written affidavits, that they had made their contributions purely for political purposes.

Is there any evidence in committee to counter the evidence submitted in affidavits by Senator DODD? We cannot go beyond the affidavits. They speak for themselves. Presumably they are legal. Considering the total number of contributors, I agree that 400 affidavits is a small number. But the committee has introduced no affidavits or testimony in rebuttal. What evidence is before us then that there were persons who contributed to Senator DODD with the understanding that the funds would be used for purely political reasons?

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. I would like to get another able lawyer into this discussion.

Mr. BROOKE. I am disturbed by this question. I think it should be answered.

Mr. COOPER. I understand the Senator's question. It is appreciated. It goes to a question which should be cleared up.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator speak louder, so we can hear over here?

Mr. COOPER. We have to look at the situation from the standpoint of the time when these events occurred.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Senate Chamber.

Mr. COOPER. As I said, I think we have to look at the situation as of the time these events occurred. I know the Senator, and all of us, must make our judgments upon the reports, the facts and explanations. If questions raised here challenge the report, or the facts upon which we made our recommendations, they must be answered.

Again I go back to my proposition that we must look at these events from the standpoint of the time they occurred. The Senator has asked very properly, what was the evidence which at that time, on what facts could we adduce evidence, as of the time the events occurred, which led us to believe unanimously that they were political events?

In answer, it is because, first, the events occurred during a period when the distinguished Senator from Connecticut was, or had been, a candidate for office, or was looking forward to being a candidate for office.

Second, the communications that were sent out by the managers of these events encouraging attendance speak of them, with one exception, as connected with campaigns, either to make up deficits or to provide for the needs of a coming campaign. That is positive evidence, certainly directed to affect or induce a person who was invited to come to the event. Was one invited to come to contribute to a political campaign or political need, or to come to make a contribution to assist a man and a friend in his personal expenses? What was it that bore upon the mind of the person who received the invitation?

First, I think one would have to say, from reading the record, that there was evidence of their political nature considering the events were held in a period of campaigns -- past, present, future; second, there was the evidence of the invitations speaking of campaigns; this was that direct evidence.

Again, as to the newspaper accounts, while I myself do not give them the greatest weight, showed the atmosphere in which the events were held.

Again the fact that those who were invited and who spoke were members of one political party, gives some evidence of the nature of the events although they might also have spoken at a testimonial.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I must insist on the regular order. The Senator can be brief in making his speech. I will permit it, but there has been a unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut is to be recognized next.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has the floor, and he can yield only for a question.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I was trying to address myself to a question that was asked.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may allow the Senator from Kentucky, out of order, to continue his discussion.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, reserving the right to object -- and I shall not object -- I simply would hope that the Senator would be brief. I understand the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DODD] is scheduled to take the floor next. I would hope that the Senator would try to be brief in stating what he has in mind.

Mr. COOPER. I understand. I heard the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts ask a perfectly proper question, which I think any Senator would expect to be answered. We have the responsibility to state what evidence we based our judgment upon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No objection is heard, and the unanimous-consent request is agreed to.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. How much time?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No limitation on the time has been stated.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Then I must object. I would like to have some understanding about how long this will go on.

Mr. COOPER. Three minutes.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The Senator can take even 5 minutes.

Mr. COOPER. All right.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized for 5 minutes by unanimous consent.

Mr. COOPER. I have stated what I believe are the positive elements of evidence. Now I will refer to the affidavits. During the course of the hearing, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut offered as evidence the affidavits. As the Senator from Utah has pointed out, the letters were prepared by counsel, and it was stated to the committee, they were sent out to those known to have attended the dinner, and about 400 answers were received. I do not know whether any refused to sign, but at least 400 did sign.

I think the Senator knows that if the committee had wanted to be legalistic, if it had wished to raise all kinds of legal objections, we could have objected to their admissibility. An affidavit given several years after the event would not be likely, as contemplated in law, to portray the intention of the person at the time he bought a ticket.

But we did not make any objection, and agreed that the affidavits should come in for whatever weight they might have.

They hold some value as to the intention of the person, without question. But concerning the basis of what affected the intention of a person at the time he bought a ticket, the reasons I have stated are evidence which might be more properly received.

I finally say that even beyond this question of what was intended, although that is important, another question is involved, and that is whether this whole practice of testimonials or dinners for personal expenses is a proper practice.

Mr. President, I think we were fair in our judgment of the facts.

Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, just one brief comment. I should like to refer my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, to pages 911 and 970 of the hearings, each of which pages contains a letter which is a clear indication that whoever wrote that letter was soliciting political campaign money.

Now, Mr. President, having been praised by my friend, the Senator from Louisiana, I recognize that as my cue to sit down, and I will now take advantage of it and yield the floor.

[INTERVENING DEBATE OMITTED]

June 15, 1967

Page 16006

Mr. STENNIS. ... We all are interested in the Senator from Connecticut -- but I do not see how any impartial Senator, with his obligation to the Chair, can find his way through this morass of money and, I say with all deference, mismanagement and lack of management and lack of explanation at the right time, and come to the conclusion that a grievous wrong has not been done to the Senate. We are trying to protect the Senate.

There has been talk about the degree of proof that is required; there has been talk about the burden of proceeding. This is the second time I have been through such a matter. I have never reached a conclusion with reference to the censure of any Senator until I was strongly convinced, firmly convinced, from the evidence, that there was wrongdoing to the institution.

I mentioned the late Joe McCarthy. I sat by him on the Committee on Appropriations, and I had to serve on the select committee which considered his case. I would not come forth with a resolution in that case until I was convinced. He has passed on -- and I mention his name with reverence -- I would not do it until I was convinced that his conduct reflected on the Senate and something had to be done.

Now, in a great spirit of generosity, suppose the Senator from Connecticut did owe all that money for political purposes. Suppose he did. Let us be generous with him. Suppose he did owe a great deal of money. In keeping with the standards of this body, is that the way to get friends, those who are interested in political affairs, to help one pay those debts?

Consider all the proof about the lack of notice, the lack of understanding, the lack of any announcement before or after or at any time that this was anything but money to be used in connection with carrying out public office, for the people, for the little people. What were they told?

I am not sophisticated enough to put a "high-falutin" meaning on what the average fellow does who pays $10 or $25 or $100 to go to a testimonial. But I believe I know what he believes in his heart and mind. He wants that person to take the money for the ticket, with a promise to use it in trust for the strengthening of the office that the person is holding for that fellow, whoever he may be; that it will be used that way in connection with carrying out that office. Certainly, that does not include -- I speak with the greatest deference -- repairs to a house or alterations to a private home or payments of thousands of dollars to a son, however fine the son may be. Is that what it means? If it does, we should come out and tell the people that is what it means and that it is all right. We cannot avoid or sidestep the real issue here.

I get nothing but grief from seeing a colleague or anyone else -- particularly a colleague -- confronted with a situation of this type. As I have said, I believe it is up to the Members of the Senate to set the standard or say the word. Many men talk about a written rule. Many men in this body voted for such a resolution the last time we were confronted with one. There was no written rule then. There is no written rule now. But with all deference to the situation then and now, the thing itself spoke, and that is what we are dealing with. These facts have already spoken.

I thank the Senate for its indulgence. I shall be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. DODD. I shall not be able to finish before the luncheon recess, but I should like to make some comments. I do not know whether to commence with the end or the beginning of the Senator's remarks.

I believe I made perfectly clear in what I said yesterday and in what I said at the hearings that not one penny of this money has enriched me.

The Senator from Mississippi has said that he thinks he knows what a man who buys a ticket has in his mind. I believe I know, also. I have attended my share of these dinners. I do not know how many are held in the Senator's State.

But all of those who attended these dinners, more than 50 percent of them said they intended me to have that money to use in any way I wanted. Not one of them said he intended me to use it the way the Senator from Mississippi has suggested.

There was plenty of time to find those people. The committee had people from the staff in Connecticut criss-crossing the State, to my great humiliation and embarrassment. But not one person was found who said so.

I am not disrespectful to the Senator. He has said that he is deferential to me, and I want him to understand that I am deferential to him. But it is something to say that because the Senator does not have this type of thinking in his mind, the people in my State have not, and that therefore I have done something wrong.

I think the Senator is making a value judgment of his own, saying this must be what the people of Connecticut thought; but there is not one shred of evidence in this record to establish it, not one.

With respect to this chart, I understood that I was charged with having diverted $116,000. The first thing I point out to the Senator with respect to this chart is the language which appears at the top of the chart: "Source and Disposition of Political Funds Raised for Senator DODD."

I have said repeatedly, and I think it is known by others -- and I think the chart itself demonstrates it if one looks at it carefully -- that there were a series of testimonial affairs, besides the raising of campaign funds. Testimonial affairs, where I live, are not considered campaign affairs. It is a mistake to refer to all of these funds as political funds. These were testimonial affairs.

The Senator referred to two or three letters that were written. I never saw those letters. It was not testified to by Mr. McNamara, Mr. Barbieri, nor by anyone else. I was not writing letters for the committee. They wrote them all. I would have written them differently if I had been doing so.

Take the testimonial dinner of 1961. I was not running in 1961. I was not running for anything. I had been elected in 1958 and I did not have to run again until 1964. Take the one, for example, in 1965. According to the figures on the chart, I received in 1961 $56,110 and in 1965, $62,000. This comes out to $118,110. How in the world can you charge me with diverting $116,000?

While I am on this subject, I know the Senator labors under a misunderstanding about these affairs. I tried to make that clear yesterday.

We had a great mayor in Hartford, a great Republican mayor.

He is one of the finest men we ever had in that city. He submitted an affidavit to this committee.

It is in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. I would like to read it aloud. He is not a Democrat. He does not pretend to be; he is an active Republican. He happens to be a personal friend of mine, but that is all. We have no political relationship at all of any kind. I am sure he thinks I vote wrong on just about everything I vote on. But he is my friend and he wanted me to stay in public life. He said in his affidavit:

STATEMENT

I, William H. Mortensen, 22 Wampanoag Drive, West Hartford, Connecticut, do voluntarily make the following statement to the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct of the United States Senate. I realize that I am not required to make this statement and do so willingly without duress or promise of reward.

I attended a dinner in Hartford, Connecticut in November, 1961 for the purpose of honoring Senator Thomas J. Dodd. The dinner was held in the Statler Hotel. I received an invitation to the dinner in the form of a letter I think was signed by Matthew Moriarty or a Mr. Powers of Berlin but I no longer have a copy of that letter. I don't believe that the letter mentioned the purpose for which the funds were being raised. but I personally did not regard the dinner as a political gathering and I did not care what use was made of my $100 contribution. As far as I know all tickets were sold for $100 per person. I recall that there were approximately 900 to 1,000 persons present at the dinner. Most of the persons in attendance were Democrats, but there were also some well-known Republicans present -- for instance Edward N. Allen, former Lieutenant Governor, as I recall.

I had no discussions concerning the proceeds of the dinner with Senator Dodd or any of his staff.

It is my opinion that the dinner was intended to be a personal testimonial for Senator Dodd.

Testimonial dinners have been fairly common in Connecticut and I believe they are generally held as personal tributes rather than political or campaign purposes. As a Republican I would have felt out of place at a dinner which was solely a Democratic fund raising affair.

I also attended a $100 plate dinner for Senator Dodd in March, 1965 at the Statler Hotel in Hartford. I was given a ticket to the dinner by someone, whom I honestly do not recall and so did not contribute $100 myself. I recall receiving a letter from Matthew Moriarty, Treasurer or perhaps Arthur Barbieri of New Haven, inviting me to the dinner in 1965 and I believe that the letter emphasized the testimonial aspect of the dinner and did not mention any fund raising aspects as I recall. The letter did not specify any particular use for the proceeds of the dinner to my recollection. I would estimate that the proceeds from the 1965 dinner would have reached $80,000 based on the number of persons present.

In particular. I recall seeing Henry Nielsen, office -- 122 Washington Street, Hartford, home -- Ridge Road, Wethersfield; Herman Wolfe, office and home, 20 Turkey Hill Circle, Greens Farms, Connecticut; Mervyn Lenz and Samuel Lenz (Brescomb Distributors) 230 Locust Street, Hartford, at the 1965 dinner, the latter three at my table.

I do not have any letters, programs, correspondence or other documents relating to either the 1961 or the 1965 dinner in my possession.

(At this point, Mr. NELSON assumed the chair.)

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that I never knew that the committee had this affidavit, or that members of its staff had procured it from former Mayor Mortensen, of Hartford.

It was never produced, to my knowledge, until we placed it in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the other day. But this is an exact example of what people who went to these affairs in Connecticut thought. Affidavits could have been obtained by the bale, if a concerted effort had been made by the committee or its staff to do so. I tried to do it and got about half of them, and I had nothing to work with. I was down here every day and night by myself. Yet more than 50 percent of the persons concerned went to the trouble of signing affidavits, and having them notarized and mailed in. I submitted all of them, as I have said.

What I particularly take issue with is the statement that the little fellow -- or the big fellow, I do not care -- thought, or was misled into thinking, by me or by anyone associated with me, that he was buying a ticket to this dinner for one purpose, when actually there was another.

There was no testimony to that effect in the record, I say to the Senator from Mississippi. I think that to be fair to me the Senator will have to say that this is his own thinking about it. It is not the thinking of anyone who testified or of anyone who submitted an affidavit. This is an important matter to me.

Someone might point to the record and say, "This is what John Jones, of Hartford, said. He thought he was contributing money to a campaign fund, but actually it was to a testimonial fund."

Then I would say, "All right; you have something." But not a single person said that except one fellow who gave a motel address. He said he paid $25 to that 1961 dinner. I sent him my check.

From the beginning, when this issue was first raised, I do not know what more I could have done than what I did. That was to state publicly -- and the statement appeared on the front page of every newspaper in my State -- that if anybody who had attended any of these affairs had been misled, and if he would tell me, I would return his money to him. Senators may say that that was a pretty big statement.

How would I pay all that money back? A friend of mine, who has that kind of money, called me and said, "Tom, if you want to make that statement, I will give you the money on a loan, so that you can pay them all back." That is how I was able to make that statement, and I did make it. But no one asked for a refund except the one person to whom I have referred.

I think this has some bearing on the entire issue. These were not all political funds. There is such a thing in our area as a testimonial affair. It is held with the intention of permitting a recipient to do what he wants to with the money.

As I said to the Senate yesterday, I imposed on myself a restriction with respect to that. I said that in the absence of any rules or regulations -- and I do not know of any -- I nevertheless would feel that one should not be entitled to enrich himself personally.

I never did.

The accountant's figures will show that I came out $50,000 in the red, out of all this money.

There are so many things to be added. I wish the Senator from Mississippi would think about them. I have referred to other testimonial affairs that were held. There have been a good many of them. They are not so uncommon, by any means, as I fear the Senator from Mississippi believes them to be.

I remember reading -- I do not know now where -- of different ones held lately. We have had them in my own State as recently as -- I do not know exactly -- I think, though, even this past week. But I would like to explain this one thing: What did I do with this $120,000 to clear political debts?

I cannot explain it dollar for dollar. A lot of it was 11 years ago. I do not even have those bankbooks. I did not have them, as the Senator knows, and the banks did not have them. I cannot trace through every dollar, but I can tell you the facts as I did tell you at the hearing.

Between 1956 and 1959, I borrowed a total of $211,000. That is in the stipulation. At the end of 1959, I owed $120,000, and the stipulation says, "In personal loans." It was personal, to show that I owed it and not someone else. The loans were not personal in purpose, but I assumed those debts and I paid them off. One was to a printing company which did my printing in 1956. There were other companies, and I did not think it was right to walk away and say, "It is too bad, but the campaign is over. I lost. There is no money to pay you."

So, I went out and borrowed money and I paid off as fast as I could and as well as I could, all the debts which were generated by the two campaigns.

Prior to that time, as I believe I told you, Senator, I was getting along all right. I did not owe that amount of money, not by a mile. By that I mean when I tried to explain, when I said "personal-political," I meant it was political as opposed to a campaign debt, although some little of the money was used in my campaign.

In 1958, Senator, and I think this is in the record, I am not sure, when I was campaigning, my income for that year -- and I say this in this hour of humiliation, that everything is known about me -- my God, if a man's life has ever been known as mine has for the last 18 months, I would like to hear about it -- was $23,000, when I was running for the Senate and I had to borrow $90,000. In 1959, when I came to the Senate, I had to borrow another $70,500, most of that going for mortgages on the house. As I said before, in 1959, I borrowed $90,000. I repaid two of these loans in 1961.

Here is something I do not know whether the Senator recalls, but I made it clear in the record, that I received a $50,000 legal fee. I had brought a lawsuit against the Teamsters International

which was tried in Washington. I appeared for the plaintiffs, and a very distinguished lawyer, Mr. Edward Bennett Williams, from my own State and the city of Hartford, appeared for the defense.

When I received that money, I used it to pay off debts, money out of my own pocket on which I had to pay taxes. Out of that money I paid off on those loans.

The other amount of $23,000 I paid from the proceeds of the 1961 testimonial. That is in the stipulation. When you say they are from personal funds, I paid most of them out of my personal funds. Once you get into debt, it is a revolving kind of thing. I borrow from A. I want to pay him back but I have not earned that amount of money so I borrow from B in order to pay back A.

Now it can be said that was not politically connected. But it was politically connected because it was borrowed for the purpose of paying back a loan on money that was given to me for a political purpose. That is the fact of the matter. And the Senator says to me to trace every dollar. I cannot do that. By that I mean that I do not have the records to do it with.

Who says, by the way, that all the proceeds of the 1961 testimonial, $33,110, were paid in personal expenses?

Who says it? O'Hare. He is the only person who said so.

I stated here yesterday that if the Senate wishes to condemn me on the testimony of a character like O'Hare, then I guess I am condemned. But, I will hope and pray for any of you that you are never in the same position.

O'Hare, an acknowledged thief, deceiver, forger, fraudulent person -- he is the only person who said so. No one else.

I also want to make the point -- I tried to do so yesterday, and I shall try before we have concluded these proceedings -- that so far as I can learn, and I have made every best effort to learn, funds given to a person at a testimonial dinner are his.

I think it was in Texas that Representative Thomas was retiring and they gave him a Cadillac. It was well advertised in the newspapers.

What is the difference in receiving a Cadillac which is worth $6,000 to $7,000 and a friend giving you $6,000 or $7,000?

I do not see much difference in the principle of the thing at all. I think it is identical.

Therefore, if it is perfectly all right, what are the limitations? Is it a certain sum of money? Must it be in currency? Can it be in automobiles, airplanes, clothing -- we could go on and on. I do not know any rules about this. I do not think any have ever been written. If they have been, I have certainly never been able to find them. That is what troubles me so deeply that you call all these funds political when they are in fact not political and were never understood to be such by anyone else.

I hope the Senator understands I am not quarreling with him personally, but I think he has a mistaken notion, and I think this committee has had a mistaken notion, of what goes on where I come from, on many occasions, and with many people.

The final thing I come back to -- and I do not think you can escape it -- is, what did I get out of it?

What did I get out of it after all these years?

I got in the hole over $50,000.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from Mississippi will point to the testimony with reference to the nature of this matter. The committee's conclusion was based on testimony, based on commonsense, based on inescapable inferences and uncontradicted testimony and lack of explanation, and other matters. As I said the other day, the thing itself spoke. I know the Senator knows there is nothing willful about it.

Mr. DODD. Of course. I understand. That does not make the pain in my back any lighter.

I point out what was said on the floor. I think the Senator from Mississippi said it: I think every Senator has to be his own judge. I think this has to do with affairs like this. Senator BENNETT said it is necessary to make a more or less arbitrary decision.

Well, I do not think a U.S. Senator ought to be condemned on such a basis -- on an arbitrary basis. There ought to be a rule, regulation, or law, so a man knows whether he is doing right or wrong, and he should not be held to some arbitrary decision or the thinking of one man, or six, or 10, or 20, with respect to an issue like this.

I think each one of us is entitled to know what the rules are, what the law is, so we can abide strictly by it. I have tried to do that all my lifetime.

Now I find myself caught in a morass, in this gray area which is sometimes referred to, because there were no rules; and there are not any that I know about.

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I will yield to the Senator from Illinois in just a moment. Reference has been made to this bank account figure of $55,766. I point this out because of the special emphasis put on it by the Senator from Massachusetts. The bank accounts on February 1, 1965, prior to the victory dinner of March 1965, showed the testimonial account had a balance of $36,371. The "Dodd for Senator Committee" account -- and that was a campaign committee for 1964 -- had a balance of $19,174. There was another, "Campaign Dollars for Dodd Committee," $216. That gives the total of $55,766, to which I previously referred. All those accounts were in charge of Mr. Sullivan, who was on the Senator's staff, and whose testimony was taken.

Does the Senator want to respond?

Mr. DODD. It is not a matter of responding. I want the record clear. I do not know whether the Senator is aware of it or not, but all these records, when we get through with these campaigns, have to be filed with the secretary of state. There were a lot of bills that came in after the campaign. I think there was $55,000 worth of bills that came in afterward. This ought to be said. They had to be paid.

Mr. STENNIS. I raised that point this morning.

Mr. DODD. I am not sure everybody understood it, because, as I listened -- and I know the Senator does not intend to hurt me in any way -- but if I had heard it and did not know anything else, I would think I was cheating. That is not the fact. These bills come in. They were paid.

Mr. BROOKE. I asked the question to obviously determine whether, at the time the money was solicited from the public at this testimonial dinner in Hartford, Conn., as I recall, there was in existence a campaign deficit, as was stated in the letter of solicitation; for if in fact the committee had asked for money to pay off that campaign deficit and there was not in fact a campaign deficit, that would be a misrepresentation and a fraud on the public.

My question is to determine whether or not at that time Senator DODD did have a campaign deficit. If he says the campaign deficit for the campaign of 1964 was $6,000-some-odd and the Senator from Mississippi has said that there were in various accounts at that time the sum of $55,000-odd, the next question I wanted to ask was whether those sums of $55;000-odd were encumbered at that time.

I take it Senator DODD has said additional campaign deficits came in after the statement was filed with the State of Connecticut. After the $6,000 campaign deficit was declared, will the Senator enlighten us how much money had to be paid over and above the $6,000 which was declared to the State of Connecticut that was actually paid out of the $55,000 fund?

Mr. STENNIS. Is that question addressed to–

Mr. BROOKE. To Senator DODD, yes.

Mr. DODD. Forgive me. I thought the Senator was addressing the question to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. BROOKE. I am not, only because I do not think the Senator from Mississippi would have those facts.

Mr. DODD. I did not hear everything the Senator said. I will move closer to him.

Mr. BROOKE. I understood the Senator from Connecticut to say he had filed a report with the secretary of state of Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. That is correct.

Mr. BROOKE. In 1964.

Mr. DODD. After the campaign.

Mr. BROOKE. Which stated there was an outstanding campaign deficit of the sum of $6,000-odd.

Mr. DODD. Yes. That is what it appeared to be as of that time.

Mr. BROOKE. Will the Senator yield? The Senator from Mississippi has said that at the time this statement was filed there was evidence before his committee that there was the sum of $55,000 in the political campaign accounts.

Mr. BENNETT. Later.

Mr. BROOKE. Or later.

Mr. DODD. That is a very important difference. There was not any $55,000 I heard of in 1964.

Mr. BROOKE. Was there $55,000 in the account at the time the Senator filed a statement with the secretary of state of Connecticut that there was a campaign deficit of $6,000?

Mr. DODD. No.

Mr. BROOKE. There was not?

Mr. DODD. No.

Mr. BROOKE. So at the time the Senator filed the campaign statement showing a deficit of $6,000 in fact there were no funds in the campaign account with which the Senator could have paid off the $6,000?

Mr. DODD. That is correct.

Mr. BROOKE. Do I understand that thereafter, in addition to that, the Senator had some $55,000 in bills?

Mr. DODD. Yes; and I received some political contributions as well.

Mr. BROOKE. Did the Senator file an amended statement with the secretary of state of Connecticut listing these additional political expenditures?

Mr. DODD. I do not think so. I am not sure about it. It would appear in the record of the committee.

Mr. BROOKE. Does the committee have evidence to this effect?

Mr. STENNIS. We have no such evidence beyond the file showing the balance. We have no information, except what was given by Senator DODD and his statement, beyond the report filed by the campaign committee in 1964 in Connecticut and the testimony of Mr. Barbieri and others who were called. They said between $6,000 and $7,000 was the deficit. They testified to that figure.

Mr. BROOKE. There was no evidence given before the committee that there were additional expenditures involved in the 1964 campaign of the Senator from Connecticut?

Mr. STENNIS. No; but the point was raised. I remember seeing it in the record on two or three occasions.

Mr. DODD. If the Senator will permit me, I think there is evidence in that record that the bills were still coming in and piling up.

Mr. STENNIS. I will be glad to see that. I do not say it is not there, Senator.

Mr. DODD. I have a clear recollection of that testimony.

Mr. STENNIS. I remember their testimony about what they said the balance was. I left my representations to the Senate completely open this morning. We said there might have been additional bills that we did not know about, that had never been brought to us, and we had not been able to find any. There could have been, and that is open to proof. I am sorry we do not have it.

I yield now to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I think the junior Senator from Massachusetts yesterday very wisely brought up a number of expenses that had been incurred and paid out of these funds that were undoubtedly subject to question, as to whether they were personal or political.

The Senator from Connecticut said it was not his intention to profit, nor has he ever profited personally nor enriched himself, as a result of these political dinners.

It would be very helpful to me, I know, if we could take one or two of these expense items that would be subject to considerably more doubt as to whether they could be construed at all as political, and trace them from the time they were received at the March 6, 1965, Hartford, Conn., dinner, mingled in the testimonial bank account, transferred, and deposited in a personal account at the Federation Bank, and then the withdrawals, starting in April: April and May 1965, $4,900, transferred by Senator DODD to his son, Jeremy, and the next month and the next month after that; in June and July of 1965, $9,479.40 paid from the Federation account for certain improvements to Senator DODD'S home in North Stonington, Conn.

Was the committee given any explanation as to whether there was any political tie on these funds, or are these purely personal? Can the Senator from Connecticut indicate in any way that he was not personally benefitted by the expenditures out of such funds?

Mr. DODD. Does the Senator want me to answer?

Mr. STENNIS. Yes; go ahead.

Mr. DODD. Yes, I can give an answer to that. I think I did at the hearing.

I have to have a home. It is a place I check in when I go to Connecticut. It is quite a distance from Hartford; it is about a 2-hour drive.

I have always felt, as I have explained here, that this money was money given to me by my friends to be used as I needed it, and could appropriately be used to keep that place up. A small amount of it went for that purpose.

I am more interested in pointing out that the money that appeared to have been turned over to my son was turned over to my son to pay bills for me, because I had to be away at that time. That is the fact about that matter.

I do not know whether it is right or wrong for a man to use these funds to keep his home up, so that he can see his constituents when he goes up there. That is what I have to do, unless I am going to ride all over the State in the short span of a weekend every time I go home, which I am not able to do. That seems to me to be a legitimate way to use these funds. If I had bought myself a mansion, completely refurnished my home, or bought a Cadillac or two, or a yacht, then it might be different. I think the rule of reason applies.

The matter the Senator from Mississippi was talking about, I think that would not be right to do; but I did not engage in any such practice, in any such sordid self-enrichment, at any time. I drive an automobile that is nearly 3 years old. I wish I had a new one. But I never used any of these funds to get one. So it has been throughout our lives. Mrs. Dodd and I have raised and educated six children. It has not been easy to do. But I have never used any of that money to pay their tuition, not a penny of it. I have paid it out of my own pocket. I have bought their clothes, and provided them the things all of us have to provide for our children. If the Senator could point to $1 of that money and say it was used for that purpose, he would have something. But there is not any of it there. He will not find it.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I shall be ready to conclude in just a minute; but in further answer to the Senator from Massachusetts, I find here in the stipulations that were agreed to -- the one I am referring to appears at page 861 -- the statement, under stipulation No. 70(a), that the amount of $36,376.54 was transferred on or about March 16, 1965, from this testimonial account that we have been talking about to the account known in the record as Grace M. Dodd or THOMAS J. DODD -- hereinafter called the Federation account -- at the Federation Bank & Trust Co. in New York.

So evidently that was the balance that was then in the testimonial account, because those figures almost identically coincide.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. DODD. That was sometime after the dinner took place.

Mr. STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. DODD. After it had all been concluded.

Mr. STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. DODD. And this money had been given to me by the committee, and they said, "This is what we have got for you; you clean up your affairs so you can do a better job down there in the Senate." That was their whole intention.

Mr. STENNIS. We gave that

Mr. DODD. I wanted to add that I failed, I think, to conclude what I started to say about that $50,000 fee. I have the impression that the committee has confused that item. That was a law fee I earned for winning that case.

Mr. STENNIS. Let me doubly assure the Senator that we never did consider that fee, not one iota.

Mr. DODD. Well, Pearson wrote the column.

Mr. STENNIS. Pearson was not running our business. Not at all.

Mr. DODD. I am not saying that. But he wrote in that column that I got $50,000 from Jimmy Hoffa.

Mr. STENNIS. Yes.

Mr. DODD. And it went all over this land, and I am sure that thousands of people believed it, when the fact of the matter -- and he knew it as well as I know it -- was that I had brought a legal action, and that Judge Letts had awarded me that fee. It was not paid by any client, but after the case was tried, he said, "This is what I think DODD and his firm are entitled to."

That is where that money came from. Those pernicious rascals spread that lie all across this land, and I think must have had a great effect on my constituents, my friends, and even on my fellow Senators, who were kind to me, and did not turn their faces away when I walked in that morning. But how else could I expect you to have felt, when you read in that paper that I received a $50,000 fee -- or he did not call it a fee; he called it a payment, I think he said -- from Jimmy Hoffa? How does a man answer that kind of lie?

All this was building up on me while the committee was considering this matter. I am not saying that it was affecting the Senator from Mississippi. I do not mean to be fulsome; I think the Senator knows how I feel about him.

Mr. STENNIS. I think I do.

Mr. DODD. I feel more warmly toward the Senator from Mississippi than I feel toward any other Member of this body. I respect no Senator more. There is no man's approval I would rather have than his.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DODD. But I was trying to explain here what psychology I think set in against me, with lies like that being told and spread across the land. I had the feeling, as I have had it consistently, that there was confusion about that item. I used it to pay off some of those political loans.

Mr. STENNIS. There is absolutely no confusion on that. There are things that happened to the Senator from Connecticut that we totally disapproved, which made us all the more zealous that we not contribute any wrong to the Senator, and add to the wrongs he had already suffered.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, with reference to the $50,000 item, the Senator from Mississippi said that there has been no confusion.

My inquiry is directed. toward learning whether there was confusion in the minds of the public between what the facts were as accepted by the committee and the report made to the public by the newspapers.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is referring to the fee from Latin America?

Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. STENNIS. I could not control that or answer that any more fully than could the Senator from Ohio.

I assure the Senator that it did not enter into our deliberations. I do not even remember it being mentioned in a committee meeting. I remember mentioning it to a Senator or a Senator mentioning it to me, and we said that it did not figure into it at all. That was another matter.

Mr. LAUSCHE. Was the conclusion of the committee different than the conclusion of the newspaper report that went out throughout the country?

Mr. STENNIS. I do not know about those things. The Senator knows that in our form of government, we have the free press. However, I am speaking for the committee, and I know that I am right on this one item.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. DODD. Concerning the confusion that I think has occurred, I will try to state the facts as accurately as I can. I may not be able to do it until later. But referring to that 1961 matter, it was out of that money that I paid off a good deal of those political loans.

I am trying to check my facts here. Now I recall. I will tell the Senator why I thought there was confusion. It was out of that legal fee that I paid off a good deal of these political loans.

However, I do not think the committee ever gave me credit for that. I think that was an inadvertence in the computation. It appears nowhere. However, it is nevertheless a fact.

Mr. STENNIS. Senator, you testified that you had paid off a good number of the loans. I remember that. Certainly there was not anything held against you on that account.

We tried to stay out of your personal business as much as we could, but we did try to locate as much information as we could about those loans.

Mr. DODD. I know that, and I wanted you to. I wanted to help you in every way that I could. However, I cannot look back 11 years and tell you what I did with that money. The only one that could do that was O'Hare. He has that kind of mind. I do not, and I do not believe that most other people do.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, added to all of the complexities of the money from so many sources, is the fact that we run into voids of information and in some instances charges have been put that cannot be answered specifically. There is the added problem which came up in the particular investigative hearing, referring to page 9, where it said:

Before a decision was made to hold hearings, the committee gave Senator Dodd the opportunity to submit a statement of fact and legal construction of the apparent financial improprieties that had been disclosed by the committee staff investigation. Reading further:

After Senator Dodd's refusal to provide such a statement. the committee unanimously decided on June 9, 1966, that it had no alternative except to conduct hearings.

I hasten to add that this was on the basis that the jurisdiction of the committee had been questioned on May 25, and from that date on repeatedly from day to day, and even after the hearings had been concluded, the jurisdictional question was still with us.

I say this not in criticism of the Senator, nor his counsel. They had a perfect right to raise the jurisdictional point and should have done so. However, the fact is that we did not have the information, some of which is coming out here today.

Mr. STENNIS. I yield the floor.

[THE SENATE TAKES A ONE HOUR RECESS FOR LUNCH]

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my administrative assistant, Mr. James Gartland, may be permitted to be present in the Chamber this afternoon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have only one other matter. I shall not take very long. I am very concerned. Lest I bore my colleagues, this is a matter of grave concern to me. If I overdo the matter a little here or there it is not intentional but rather it is because I am so concerned about this issue.

I have referred so much to the $120,000 of politically connected debts which I brought with me to the Senate that I want to say something about that again. I am particularly anxious that Senator STENNIS hear me. Apparently he. is not in the Chamber now. However, I am just

as anxious that Senators hear me, and particularly members of the committee. I made these notes during the noon recess.

One of the stipulations reflects the fact that as of January 1, 1960, I owed $150,000. Of this amount, $30,000 represents a purchase money mortgage on my home in Washington. The balance is the $120,000 that I have referred to.

The question is: Was it political?

I testified at the hearings that prior to 1956, when I first ran for the Senate, I had no substantial indebtedness, and that is a fact. But after running unsuccessfully in 1956, and running successfully for the nomination and for the election in 1958, I ended up with this net indebtedness of $120,000 that we talk about. Here is a place again where that postulate of the Senator from Mississippi is applicable: the thing speaks for itself. It is completely applicable here.

Since I entered the Senate in 1959 -- I remind Senators of what I have said before, as it is pertinent to this issue -- I have incurred unreimbursed costs of office in the amount of $101,000. This is not only my statement. It is reflected in a letter to me by my certified public accountant.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter may be printed in the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

THOMPSON & BELLOFF, CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS,

Silver Spring, Md.,

May 17,1967.

Hon. THOMAS J. DODD,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR DODD: You have asked us to review the records maintained by your Washington, D.C. office staff for the years 1959 through 1966 and prepare a summary of the expenditures considered by you to be incidental to your employment as a U.S. Senator. including certain expenditures made in maintaining a residence in Washington. D.C. In this regard, we submit the following:

Expenditures Incidental to the office of U.S. Senator:

Travel and entertainment (Including estimated expenses of $9,171.621)-------------- $51,090.67 Less reimbursements---------- 14, 340.91

Subtotal ------------------------- 36,749.76

Dues and subscriptions---------------------------------------------- 3, 979.33

Photographs, news clipping service, radio and television------10, 160.61

Telephone and telegraph--------------------------------------------- 9,327,69

Less reimbursements------------------------------------------------- 1,140.00

Subtotal ------------------------------------------------------------------ 8,187.69

Office supplies and other expenses --------------------------------- 11,825.14

Less reimbursements-------------------------------------------------- 5,712.13

Subtotal ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6,113.01

Total ------------------- 65.190.40 2

The amount of $9,171.62 represents your estimate of the portion of checks drawn payable to cash totaling $31,007.00 used by you as out-of-pocket expenses for travel and entertainment purposes for the years 1959 through 1966.

Expenditures in maintaining a second residence in Washington, D.C.:

Utilities ---------------------------------              5,021.78

Telephone ------------------------------ 2,285.04

Repairs and maintenance-------------   8, 364.65

Real estate taxes -----------------------  5,390.81

Interest expense------------------------ 10,297.09

Insurance -------------------------------  1,389.08

Rent (1959) ----------------------------   2, 147.60

Moving expenses (1959) -------------  1, 266.76

Total ------------------------------------- 36,162.81

Grand total------------------------------ 101,353.21

It is understood that the items included in the caption "Expenditures made in maintaining a residence in Washington, D.C." do not include the cost of residence, including improvements, furnishings, maid service and principal curtailments on the mortgage.

This summary was prepared from your records and from information furnished to us but without independent verification, at this time, of the supporting data.

Very truly yours,

THOMPSON & BELLOFF.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, from the testimonial funds I paid off some $49,000 of these politically connected debts of $120,000. The balance of these politically connected debts, which have now all been paid, were paid out of my personal funds. That is the point I am trying hard to get across here in this great jungle of figures, numbers, and statistics.

The fact is that between 1960 and 1966 I had to pay a total of $70,000 out of my pocket. It did not come out of any testimonial fund. I had to pay that amount out of my pocket in order to retire politically connected debts. Furthermore, between 1959 and 1966 I did incur these unreimbursed costs of office of about $101,000.

I ask: Is there any wonder, having paid a large amount of political expenses from personal funds, I was required to borrow in order to meet other obligations, such as personal income taxes, which has been raised here? What does that have to do with it? That is how it happened. I had been paying out of my pocket to pay off those political debts. When income tax time came around the money I earned and would have had in my pocket to pay those taxes, I had to borrow. That is how it happened. That is the fact. I would have otherwise paid them out of my pocket.

The effect, then, was that when I paid off these personal loans, such as loans to pay taxes, I was in every real sense of the word, repaying politically connected debts.

If the committee wishes to do it by one step you come to another conclusion but it was not a one-step situation. There were several steps and it is true, unless that approach is adopted which I call the tracing, one-step approach.

Perhaps I can best emphasize the fallacy of it in a couple of ways. I have been thinking about this all of the time: How do I make this clear?

The net effect to me -- as Senators have heard me say before, and I want Senators to remember -- of all these funds which Senators have heard about is that it has been and is, in fact, a personal deficit of about $50,000. That is a fact. We cannot get away from it. It is not a matter of anybody's opinion, but I fear the committee completely ignores it. The committee does not talk about it at all, but it exists and it is as real as you are or I am. It is there.

The second point is that the committee appears to treat some $33,110 of the proceeds of the 1961 testimonial dinner as having been used for personal purposes, which appears on the chart with which we were presented this morning. What is the fact? In fact, in 1961, and prior to the 1961 testimonial dinner, I repaid, first, one of the political loans. That forms a part of the $120,000 which has been referred to. I repaid it in the amount of $25,000, and that was out of that fee I earned, which I neglected to say this morning was for a case I tried in 1957. It was not since I came to the Senate or while I was a Member of Congress. I paid taxes on it and took what was left and paid off what were altogether political loans, money loaned me to fight for the election in 1958. That is the fact about that.

This was paid out of my personal fund; my own pocket; my income on which I pay taxes. Therefore, I was entitled, I believe, and I think my friends felt so, too, to reimburse myself out of the gifts which they made. That is the fact of that matter.

Because the committee could not or was not able to trace the testimonial funds directly to the payment of that politically connected loan, the chart the committee put before the Senate -- I fear or I guess, in the judgment of the committee or some of its members -- gives me no credit at all for the repayment of this politically connected loan. But it is a fact and it is there and cannot be escaped. Thus, the chart reflects a personal loan of $33,110 of the proceeds of the 1961 testimonial dinner. It ignores entirely what I paid out of my pocket to retire that political loan.

This is overstated, obviously, by at least $35,000. That is simple arithmetic. I do not know any better way to explain it myself, but it is a fact and I wanted to place it before the Senate the best way I could and as soon as I could.

I also want to add or reemphasize this one step approach. It is not a matter of one step. It is a matter of several steps. But because we have to take more than one does not mean that they are unconnected with political loans. That, I think, is one of my difficulties in making my case clearer to Members of the Senate.

Now I ask that Senators look at the chart on my left. It is a truthful chart. It shows what I have been talking about, particularly the politically connected debts between 1956 and 1958 of $120,000. That chart is right. The final figure is right.

I do not know how we all got lost in this thing. Until I had a chance to explain it, I tried as best I could with what was available to me at the time. There are some things I cannot go back and find which happened 11 years ago, if one does not have the records. I do not know of anyone else that does except one person who says he does; but he has lied about me so much, I do not expect that he will change his mind or attitude in any respect.

I believe and I suggest to my colleagues in the Senate that that chart is the complete, truthful, and final answer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the chart and the documentation thereon be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the table and documentation thereon were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[CHART OMITTED]

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield?

Mr. DODD. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. There has been reference in this debate several times to a fee of $50,000 which the Senator earned.

Mr. DODD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOLLAND. But I have not heard any statement concerning the year in which that fee was earned and collected. I wonder whether the Senator could supply that.

Mr. DODD. Yes. I neglected to state the year this morning. I earned that fee in 1957. I was not a Member of the Senate then. I was not in public office. I was in private life. I was retained by the plaintiffs in that case. It ended in a settlement. I was paid my share of that fee in 1961. We did not get paid for 4 years.

That is the $50,000 which Drew Pearson, as I said, put in his column as "Dodd took $50,000 from Hoffa." [Laughter.] Well, I know that we may laugh at that, but if you had to live with it, it would be pretty hard to smile about.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield for one further question?

Mr. DODD. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator said that he collected it all, or his portion of it, in 1961; is that not correct?

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. HOLLAND. In fairness to the Senator from Connecticut, I believe that the RECORD should indicate whether there was any reduction from the total fee paid to the distinguished Senator due to sharing the fee with others?

Mr. DODD. Yes, there was. I do not have the exact figure but I think I got about half of the total fee. The rest of it went to my partners who were associated with me on the case.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question at that point?

Mr. DODD. I want to be sure, first, to clear this one point up.

Mr. HOLLAND. One of my friends siting nearby asked another question; namely, because of the fact that this service was rendered over a period of years, was the fee for tax purposes spread over those years, or was it credited as having been earned in only 1 year?

Mr. DODD. I am not sure, but I think it was spread. I believe it was spread. Under the law, it could be. I do not have that right at hand. Yes, I am told, it was spread over those years.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator from Florida.

Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana had asked me to yield to him for a question.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield for a question?

Mr. DODD. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. MUSKIE. I take it from the Senator's comments this morning, and from this chart, that the Senator regards some of these dinners or receptions as testimonials and others as being political?

Mr. DODD. No. I do not regard testimonial affairs as political.

Mr. MUSKIE. I wonder if the Senator would identify the dinners represented by the figure of $167,330?

Mr. DODD. That is all of them. That is all of them.

Mr. MUSKIE. Which ones? Could the Senator specify?

Mr. DODD. The years 1961, 1963, and 1965.

Mr. MUSKIE. Which ones does the Senator regard as political?

Mr. DODD. I do not regard any of those political.

Mr. MUSKIE. I mean as covered on the chart.

Mr. DODD. None of them.

Mr. MUSKIE. I am referring to the chart that the committee printed and which the committee presented to the Senate this morning.

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. MUSKIE. On which seven dinners and receptions are referred to.

Mr. KUCHEL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine please speak a little louder so that we can hear on this side of the aisle?

Mr. MUSKIE. I am wondering whether any of those are regarded by the Senator as political -- as political affairs?

Mr. DODD. No. I do not now nor have I ever regarded them as such.

Mention was made here this morning of a $6,000 item. It has been said, "Why did he take that as a loan and then pay it back if it was a testimonial? It was his money. He surely did not have to do that."

Well, Mr. President, that sounds convincing until it is understood that I am not a tax expert or an accountant. When the accountant told me -- I later learned that he got it from O'Hare -- I was confused and I said, "Whatever you say -- all right -- I will do." Later on, my associates and friends in Connecticut said, "What in the world did you do that for? That was your money. You didn't have to handle it that way."

That is exactly what happened. Nevertheless, I let it stand. I paid that money into the campaign fund. That is where it wound up. I never sought to take it out. The fact is, that is where it rested all the time.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield?

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. JACKSON. In an effort to clarify the record in connection with the questions propounded by the Senator from Florida, I should like to call the Senator's attention to page 1045 of the hearings, part 2, in which the Senator's return for 1961 is included, in part. I note there that the $50,000 fee is allocated on the basis of services performed in 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, and 1961.

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. JACKSON. I thought that the Senator would want the record–

Mr. DODD. That is right.

Mr. JACKSON. To be clear on that point, because I had understood the Senator to say that the fee was earned prior to coming to the Senate.

Mr. DODD. It was.

Mr. JACKSON. The return seems to indicate that the fee was apportioned over those years, which would indicate that services were performed during those 5 years. It is just a matter of making the record clear.

Mr. DODD. Yes. I understand that was in accordance with the carry back provisions of tax laws.

Mr. JACKSON. I thought that the Senator would want the record made clear in that regard because the return indicates that the fee had been apportioned over a 5-year period. That was all.

Mr. DODD. Yes. I thank the Senator from Washington. I think the Senator is accurate. I think it was for compliance with tax laws that it was done in that fashion.

Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield?

Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. HRUSKA. A little bit ago, the Senator did get unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the text of what is on that bulletin board.

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. HRUSKA. The first item there is the one for "unreimbursed costs of office, $101,353" -- under the heading "DODD's Political Expenses Exceeded His Contributions."

In the memorandum of May 17, 1967, which Senator DODD circulated to his colleagues, there is a breakdown on pages 10 and 11 of that $101,000 figure of unreimbursed costs of office.

Would the Senator consider asking unanimous consent to insert that breakdown right after the chart appears in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, so that there will be, for purpose of convenience, reference to it at that point?

Mr. DODD. Yes. I think it is already in the RECORD. If the Senator wants it in again, I am willing.

Mr. HRUSKA. It would be convenient to have it there.

Mr. DODD. Very well.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator, so the RECORD will clearly reflect the facts with reference to the $50,000 fee he received, did he sue Hoffa or the other side?

Mr. DODD. I was on the other side.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Was that Hoffa?

Mr. DODD. It was the International Brotherhood.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Which?

Mr. DODD. The Teamsters Union. I have forgotten the technical name, in the exact form, but that is what it was. I represented the local Teamster Union. I tried a suit against the International.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. If I understand correctly, Senator, you represented the local union which brought suit against the International Union, which was suing Hoffa, in other words?

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. So, having sued Mr. Hoffa, the case was decided several years later, after the Senator had become a U.S. Senator?

Mr. DODD. No. What actually happened was that after we had been in the plaintiff's case, we reached an agreement for a settlement. That is what was done. It was dragged around quite a while. It was in the time the board of monitors was set up.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Can the Senator state what was the final settlement of the case?

Mr. DODD. At that time a board of monitors was established to oversee the affairs of the union. In effect, I recall now, that was substantially what the result was.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Who received judgment in this case? Did the local union have to pay the international union, or did the international union have to pay the local union?

Mr. DODD. I do not know whether payments were made to the local union, or whether a court order to pay was entered in the case.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. So are we to understand there was a court order for Hoffa's union to pay the Senator's law firm a fee in a case it had filed, with some success, against the international union?

Mr. DODD. That is correct.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. So while it was Hoffa's union that paid the Senator a fee, it was because the Senator had filed a suit against Hoffa's union, and with considerable success?

Mr. DODD. Well, I expect we came out well.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The court fixed the fee?

Mr. DODD. Yes. The court fixed the fee. Judge Letts presided at that trial and he established the fee.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Is that the order about which I read in the press? Pearson said that Hoffa had paid DODD $50,000 and DODD got it all himself and would not even split it with his law partners?

Mr. DODD. I said that this morning. The Senator did not hear it. [Laughter.] I was greatly distressed about that. I said it went clear across this land. It went clear across the water.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, may I ask that the RECORD show that there was laughter when the Senator said "The Senator did not hear me"?

Mr. DODD. I do not know what--

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. May the RECORD show that? The RECORD will now show that. That is all right.

Mr. DODD. I hope the Senator was not offended. I was not laughing. I do not want to lose any friends.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. I yield.

Mr. McCLELLAN. In line with the information sought by the distinguished Senator from Maine a few minutes ago, when he questioned the Senator about the testimonial dinners, which were testimonial and which were dinners, according to the chart, a copy of which was laid on the desks of all of us this morning by the committee, it shows that a dinner in 1961 grossed $64,245; a reception in 1963 grossed $13,770; another in 1963, the Fairfield reception and Bridgeport dinner, grossed $15,705; another in 1963, the Hartford breakfast and Woodbridge luncheon, grossed $31,040; a dinner in 1965 grossed $79,223.

I believe those are the only dinners or testimonial dinners involved.

Mr. DODD. I believe that is correct.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Is it the Senator's contention that none of these were political, for the purpose of raising campaign funds?

Mr. DODD. Absolutely.

Mr. McCLELLAN. But they were simply for the purpose of making contributions to the Senator for personal use or for any purposes for which he might choose to use the proceeds thereof?

Mr. DODD. That is exactly right.

Mr. McCLELLAN. The Senator's contention is that whatever these dinners and receptions produced in effect became the Senator's to do with what he pleased, irrespective of whether it was for political purposes or not?

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Can the Senator then give an answer as to why the purposes recited in the language of the invitations to these dinners designated them as political, to raise campaign funds?

Mr. DODD. I tried to answer that this morning. I never saw those letters. One of them, written by Mr. McNamara, was the only such letter he wrote. I believe he so testified. He wrote it to some personal friends. I never saw that letter or any other letter. I was not in that position with respect to the people who organized them and were running these dinners.

Mr. McCLELLAN. One other question: Were not some of your staff directly identified with each of these fund-raising occasions and participating in the organization and management of them?

Mr. DODD. At a later date, they were; but at the time those letters were written, they were not.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Is the only letter that you did not see, to which you make reference now, the letter from Mr. McNamara?

Mr. DODD. I think there were two from Mr. McNamara that I did not see, and there were two, or perhaps one, from Mr. Barbieri.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Are we to understand that had you seen the letters and observed that they were making solicitations and extending invitations on the basis of political fund-raising, you would have objected to that?

Mr. DODD. Yes; I would have. I certainly would have -- in every instance because I was not trying to raise political funds in 1961, and certainly not in 1965 or 1963, at any of those affairs. Had I seen them, I would have said, "That is wrong." But I never saw them, as a matter of fact, and the men who wrote them so testified. But I never saw them and did not know about them.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. ALLOTT. I listened with interest to the questions of the distinguished Senator from Florida and the distinguished Senator from Washington. I am referring to page 1045 of part II of the hearings, relative to the employment, which is recorded at that particular point. As I understand, the Senator said that this employment was in 1957.

Mr. DODD. That was when the case was tried.

Mr. ALLOTT. How long did the trial extend? Over what period?

Mr. DODD. My recollection is that it was about a month, as far as I can remember.

Mr. ALLOTT. Was that the Teamster case?

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. ALLOTT. What I cannot understand is how the Senator is able to allocate the income over a period of 3 years -- actually, it is over a period of 5 years, according to what he shows here.

Mr. DODD. I think the answer to that is, first, that the matter continued. There were numerous investigations going on, back and forth. The case was finally resolved when we got paid in 1961.

Mr. ALLOTT. Was it 1961 when the case was billed? Was that the actual termination?

Mr. DODD. No; I think it was billed in early 1961, although I do not have that data right at my disposal. But I think my recollection is correct that I was not paid because the matter was hanging on and there were several matters in connection with it. It seems to me, as I recall, that there was an appeal matter concerning the case. But anyway, under the tax law at that time, as I understand, one could spread the fee from the date it was paid until the date the matter commenced or was undertaken, whether or not it continued during the interim period. I believe that was the law.

Mr. ALLOTT. The reason I ask these questions of the distinguished Senator is that section 1301, title 26, United States Code, provides criteria by which compensation for employment can be spread back; and I understood the Senator to say that the work was accomplished in 1957, put this section provides that the work has to have covered a period of 36 months or more. I am referring to subsections (a), (b), and (c) -- subsection (c) dealing with partners -- which set up the criteria for such employment period.

What I could not understand, from the Senator's remarks -- and there has been a lot of confusion here in the Chamber -- was how he could spread the compensation for such employment back to 1957 from 1961, or from 1957 forward to 1961, if the work was all accomplished in 1957.

Mr. DODD. The case was tried that year. There were several complications ensuing during an extensive period thereafter. But in any event, I can best answer the Senator by saying that was the way I was informed the law applied in that situation.

Mr. ALLOTT. Actually, the Senator's employment was not completely terminated in 1957, then?

Mr. DODD. As far as I was concerned, it was. The firm was still involved to some extent. I was not involved personally.

Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. I yield.

Mr. METCALF. I note that beginning on page 1105 of the hearings, there is a digest of the election laws of Connecticut. It says that:

The payments, expenditures, promises and liabilities which any candidate for senator of the United States may make or incur, directly or indirectly, in aid of his nomination or election, or both, shall not exceed one-third of the salary of said office for one year.

That would be, at the most, $10,000?

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. METCALF. I note that on the chart the Senator has on display in the back of the room, it shows that the out-of-pocket deficit for DODD's political expenses exceeded contributions by more than $55,000. So that is in violation of the laws of Connecticut?

Mr. DODD. Yes, unless you remember that there are a lot of committees involved in these campaigns. I think the Senator will find that that is the fact.

Mr. METCALF. I am talking about the State law, not the Federal law.

Mr. DODD. I understand that. But I think that is the answer. The committees were active, and I believe that is the answer to the Senator's question.

Mr. METCALF. That the Senator had. no knowledge and no opportunity to find out how much the committees were spending?

Mr. DODD. No, not exactly. I do not recall, certainly, at this hour, what the costs were in that year. But I am sure that is the answer.

Mr. METCALF. I thank the Senator.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield to me for a question?

Mr. DODD. I yield.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. In this income tax return reproduced at pages 1045, 1046, and 1047, it shows the $50,000 fee, and it shows the tax on that computed as, I believe, $24,000.

I understood the Senator to say that he paid half of that fee to members of his firm.

Mr. DODD. No; the Senator misunderstood me.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. The Senator did not take advantage of that, in this tax return, evidently. The tax is spread over 5 years, on $50,000.

Mr. DODD. Yes; but I think the difficulty is that the fee was larger than $50,000. I may not have made that clear.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. This was the Senator's share of the fee?

Mr. DODD. That is right.

Mr. YARBOROUGH. I did not understand that.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. BENNETT. The Senator has made the point that these testimonial dinners were all personal testimonials, and not political.

Mr. DODD. That is right.

Mr. BENNETT. On page 993 of the hearings, about 10 lines up from the bottom, is the note that the Democratic National Committee was paid $7,500 for providing the Vice President as the speaker. Does not the Senator think this represents some political connection?

Mr. DODD. I think it is always helpful, at a dinner, in order to attract people, to get the Vice President of the United States.

Mr. BENNETT. I would think if the Vice President was coming up to help his friend, TOM DODD, with no political connotations, that the Democratic National Committee, whose chairman lives in TOM DODD's State, would not exact $7,500 for the privilege.

Mr. DODD. He did not exact it. The committee volunteered it.

Mr. BENNETT. My next question is, was the Vice President's speech that night political?

Mr. DODD. I am sure it was. I do not have it before me, of course, but as I remember, it was typical of him; it was an engaging, humorous personal speech, much of it about me. He said some other things in his prepared text, about mass transportation, as the Senator will note from the newspaper clipping on page 992.

Actually, as I recall it, he departed from or did not follow closely his text which was released to the press.

Mr. BENNETT. I thought perhaps the reference to the Senator might possibly have been in the introduction, the kind of thing a guest would say under the circumstances, and that his prepared text had to do with programs of the Senator's party and the Vice President's party, such as mass transportation and the Great Society.

Quoting from the article in the Hartford Times of March 8, 1965, as reproduced at page 992 of the hearings:

He said the Great Society is a "recognition that a second car, power mowers and dry martinis are not enough.

It is the recognition that we stand for something not seen before in the world -- we stand for the dignity for, and fulfillment of, individual man and woman.”

That sounds to me like a very good Great Society political speech.

Mr. DODD. The Senator can interpret it any way he wants. The Vice President of the United States, to whichever party he belongs, if he goes to make an address, he takes up in that address something that he feels is important and of interest to the audience. And there is nothing more interesting to people in the southern New England States than the mass transportation problem.

We have great problems concerning mass transportation, as other Senators from that area know.

While I am on that subject, the Senator asked me why the Vice President was invited. I am in politics and public life. If I were a teacher, I would probably have suggested the president of some university. It seems perfectly normal to me that I or the committee would like to have a prominent person from public life. And I think that was the reason.

Mr. BENNETT. The thing that disturbs the Senator from Utah is that the Senator from Connecticut has a good friend who is the Vice President of the United States, and he is having a testimonial dinner to help him pay his debts. For some reason, I said the Democratic National Committee exacted $7,500. For some reason, out of that money that he needs so badly to pay his debts, $7,500 was paid to the Democratic National Committee.

It seems to me as though that was the price you had to pay to get the Vice President there. And that, to me, stamps this meeting very largely as political.

Mr. DODD. I hope I can convince the Senator that he has an erroneous impression. I was not running for office that year, and it was exactly what I have described it to be and what other people who attended the meeting took it to mean.

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. I yield.

Mr. PERCY. I think it is quite an important question as to what was in the minds of contributors on the basis of the letters sent to them and the representations made to them for the purpose of these fund-raising affairs.

I think it is also very important to determine what was in the mind of the Senator from Connecticut in inviting the then Vice President of the United States and what representations were made to him in order to induce him to come to Connecticut to be the principal speaker.

For that reason, I would like to read from an article which was published in the New York Times on May 28, 1967, a letter from the Senator from Connecticut to Lyndon Johnson, Vice President of the United States, under date of August 5, 1963.

It reads:

DEAR LYNDON: First of all allow me to thank you again for your generous offer to come to Connecticut to assist me in my forthcoming campaign. Since receiving definite word from your office that you will be available on October 26 for the entire day, I have scheduled a variety of activities that will cover the principal centers of the State.

I wish I could convey to you how enthusiastic everyone is about your visit and how much it will assist us in getting my campaign drive under way.

Our schedule of activities for October 26 is as follows: 9 am., breakfast in Hartford. Noon -- luncheon in New Haven. 4 or 5 p.m. dedication of the new Municipal Stadium in Bridgeport. 7 p.m. dinner in Bridgeport.

Your visit will come a week before the municipal elections in most of the large cities of Connecticut. There are some hotly contested elections and while, of course, no one expects you to become involved in any of them, your presence in the State at that time will be a great boost to the Democratic cause.

Everywhere I go to make arrangements for your visit, people express the hope that your gracious wife, Lady Bird, will be with you when you come to Connecticut. We are counting on her, too, and are planning some entertainment for her.

Your visit means more to me than I can say, Lyndon, and I shall never forget it. Sincerely yours,

THOMAS J. DODD.

In looking to see what comments were made by the Senator from Connecticut during the course of the fund-raising affairs, I find the statement in the committee hearings on page 921, part II, from an article published in the Hartford Courant of October 27, 1963

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I must insist on the regular order. If the Senator wants to make a speech, he can have the floor.

Mr. PERCY. I have one paragraph, if I may finish. I think it is germane.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has the floor.

Mr. PERCY. This article is from the Hartford Courant of October 27, 1963.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order has been called for.

The Senator from Connecticut has the floor and can yield only for a question except by unanimous consent.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from Illinois be permitted to proceed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I object. I objected before, and I object now.

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, may I ask it in the form of a question?

Mr. DIRKSEN. We have been very generous. If you are going to play that kind of pool, two of us can play, and you will make no speeches on anybody else's time. It will be on a question and answer basis or it will not happen, because there will be objection.

We have been very generous with the Senator from Connecticut this morning.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I insist on the regular order.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Very well; you will have it that way.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Regular order has been called for. The Senator from Connecticut has the floor.

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DODD. Yes. I will yield. I do not want to appear to refuse to answer a question.

I get caught in the crossfire all the time here, and I wish it were not so. If you ask me a question, I shall try to answer the best I can.

Mr. PERCY. I should simply like to ask the Senator from Connecticut whether this account contained in an article published by the Hartford Courant on October 27, 1963, following the political events that were discussed is correct.

The statement reads:

Throughout the trip, Sen. Dodd expressed his "gratitude" to Vice President and Mrs. Johnson for coming to the State to help him build up a campaign war chest for 1964.

"It is difficult to adequately thank you for doing so," Sen. Dodd said.

Is that a true account?

Mr. DODD. No. That is not true. I do not think that anybody who was along that day would say anything different.

This is one reporter's version, obviously. It certainly was not mine, and I never heard anybody else say that.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. DODD. I yield.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, did these articles come to your attention? You say you did not know it before and that you did not see it. Did these come to your attention immediately?

Mr. DODD. I am sure I saw it at the time.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Was it after that that you made this disbursement of funds in the way in which you have?

Mr. DODD. Yes.

Mr. McCLELLAN. It was after these articles and the letters; you knew about the letters later, did you not?

Mr. DODD. No. I did not.

Mr. McCLELLAN. With all of this political atmosphere about the letters going out for invitation, and the Vice President being invited for political purposes, you knew nothing about it?

Mr. DODD. I knew the Vice President was going to be there.

Mr. McCLELLAN. You did not know it was going to be for political purposes?

Mr. DODD. No. It was not for political purposes.

Mr. McCLELLAN. Okay.

Mr. DODD. Everything of this character has a political tone. How can it have anything else? I happen to be in politics. And to that extent, it has a political tone and connotation. But that does not change the central character of it. It may appear differently to others. But I tell the Senator from Arkansas that was not in my mind or in the minds of the people who organized the affairs, or in the minds of the people who attended.