I would think the balancing of the budget by cutting and holding down expenses, difficult as it is, that it can be done. We had to do it. It is a very difficult thing.

Senator ALLEN. Can you suggest various ways in which a cut can be made?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think every Department, every Agency, has to do two things:

One, review its program to see if the program is still needed in terms of the changing conditions and if it is not, cut it off, examine to see whether the program could be operated more efficiently and, I think that there must be a more efficient way than we are now doing between Federal, State, and local governments.

Senator ALLEN. Well, do many Federal bureaucrats come in and say it would be well to dispense with the programs that they are managing. Did you ever see that happen? Or State bureaucrats for that matter. Mr. ROCKEFELLER. No, sir. That is not the No. 1 characteristic. That comes way down the line and has to be encouraged and the tough part is really for the elected officials and their designated appointed officials and this is a very difficult thing.

As I said, we let over 11,000 people go and that was one of the most traumatic experiences and while the legislature was enthusiastic about it in principle, after we let them go then I got all the people back that said you let the wrong people go that came out of their district.

It is a very tough thing, but I think we have to face the hard realities. Then, I think, we have to review new programs, lots of new ideas and those have to be considered very carefully to see if they can be postponed or not.

I would like to mention one more thing, Senator Allen, if I might, in connection with this. It is not only direct Federal expenditures but in the laws that are written by the Congress, signed by the President, there are mandated expenditures by local government and State government to match these, so that there is a secondary factor that you forced a local government to spend more money. That needs to be reviewed, plus the fact in the whole series of legislative acts now, mandated expenses on private enterprise in relation to safety, in relation to ecology, and so forth.

I think we have to reexamine those because there are many industries now paying up to 33 percent capital costs for one or another of these very important programs. But, I think we have to say we can postpone for a period certain steps that are being taken?

Senator ALLEN. You do plan to exert your best efforts and cooperation with the President to see that the Federal Government does have a balanced budget for the fiscal year starting July 1, 1975?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes, sir, I do, and I just have to add this other one thing: that I think it would be very useful if Congress when they pass legislation said this is what it is going to cost the Federal Government, this is what it is going to cost State and local Government, and this is what it is going to cost private enterprise, so you put those figures into the law too so everyone can take a look at it.

Senator ALLEN. Well, the revenue sharing program eliminated a lot of matching for Federal grants.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Very helpful.

Senator ALLEN. You thought that that was wise expenditure of taxpayers' funds?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes, sir. And, if you get categorical grants put into block grants and cut the number from over 1,000 down to 50 or 60, you are going to eliminate an awful lot of layers of Government structure. A good friend of mine, one Governor out west, in connection with the water quality-and this is an area I have been very interested in-is a believer in cleaning up our own waters, and has to have two staffs. One staff is to answer the questions, fill out the forms for Washington, make the applications, and redo them, and so forth.

The other staff is to carry out the program in the State in which he resides.

Senator ALLEN. I want to thank you very much.

There is one area I want to explore. Some years ago you commented on the then Administration, I believe the Administration of President Johnson, saying that the Administration in its dealings with Russia was confusing a change in Soviet tone with a change in Soviet goals. I think that was a very fine statement.

Do you think that the Nation today is running the danger or the risk of falling into that same pitfall?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, this is a terribly important point which you raise, Senator.

We want them to change their tone because we want to have cooperative relationships in this world in which we are all involved because it makes it easier to work to solve problems.

But, I do not think that we want to forget the basic objectives of international communism as being what Khrushchev said, I guess our grandchildren, they were going to bury.

I have to think that everybody is entitled to have their own plans and have their own objectives in this world, but I think it is up to us to be sophisticated enough to recognize it and deal with them. If we are strong and if we are aware, then we are going to stay in a position where we can deal with somebody else to the mutual benefit of both, but if we get weak then it gets into the question you are dealing because you are blackmailed instead of because you are dealing from strength.

Senator ALLEN. Well, détente is nothing more than a mirage; is it? Is there anything substantial there? Does Russia go back on any commitments that it makes if it serves its purposes to do so?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, that may be true. It is just like any contract. It is really only effective as long as it serves the interest of both parties. If it does not serve it you had better soon start to renegotiate the

contract.

I think that détente as long as we are strong and as long as we are aware, is a very fine thing. Settling of the Vietnam war I think required Soviet cooperation and the Chinese cooperation. I think that was very well handled. The Middle East situation requires this cooperation. Senator ALLEN. What about the trade bill now pending in Congress that would make a most-favored nation out of Russia?

Now, by what stretch of the imagination would Russia, our potential adversary, be entitled to treatment under our tariff laws as a most favorable nation?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, I think this trade law is terribly important to give the Administration the tools to negotiate with. You cannot

negotiate unless you have something that you can give in return for something somebody else does for you.

Senator ALLEN. Well, that is all right. What about the specific questions of making Russia a most favored nation along with our allies under the same bill?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, I do not know the details, but I would assume that this is psychologically, prestigewise very important to the Soviet Union and, therefore, something that would mean a lot to them and that they were willing to do things that we need done in return. Now, No. 2, there are areas in which we could cooperate with them in trade on a mutual beneficial basis, and if we are sophisticated and if we are wise and intelligent and do not get taken to the cleaners, then I think that these are useful tools for the negotiators to have.

Senator ALLEN. Some of the political writers, columnists, are suggesting that Secretary of State Kissinger may possibly be on his way out. I certainly hope that is not true. But, would you feel that that would be contrary to the best interests of the United States?

I know the close relationship you have with Dr. Kissinger and the relationship you have had in the past. As a matter of fact, I feel he is something of a protege of yours.

But, what would be your feeling about that? Do you think there is any substance to these reports that are reported in the press from time to time?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, Senator, I never thought this subject might come up and that I would have a chance to express myself, but I am delighted to have a chance to express myself in this hearing because I think that Henry Kissinger for this Nation, at this particular moment in our history, has been an absolute Godsend in terms of his total grasp of the world picture, his capacity to think conceptually, to open up options for the United States.

To take the situation out in the Far East, we were locked in with mainland China and the countries to the south. We were locked in to a military confrontation which is the worst position in the world to have and as that little book I referred to yesterday said that no nation can benefit from a protracted war. My friend in the book 2,500 years ago said really good generals never get into war. They do not have to. But, I think that Dr. Kissinger's role in this country and his skill as a negotiator and his ability to establish confidence in other people, even people who have had no confidence in us in recent years, such as the Egyptians and the Syrians, are essential to this country at this time and I think to take some small areas, fringe areas, and to try magnifying them.

I know it is human nature if somebody achieves a high position that at that point they start shooting at them. This is the right of a free country and the free press, but I just cannot believe that we would be as a Nation or as a Government shortsighted enough to lose this man's talents at this particular moment in history.

Senator ALLEN. Well, you have full confidence in him and you would express that opinion to the President? Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Absolutely, sir.

Senator ALLEN. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rockefeller, in the years 1972 and 1973 were you ever contacted by Mr. John Mitchell, Mr. Bob Haldeman, Mr.

40-185 074 - 14

John Ehrlichman or Mr. John Dean, or any of those named persons, or any other persons, with respect to furnishing money in connection with Watergate cover-up activities?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you furnish any money to any of these people or any other person for those purposes during that period? Mr. ROCKEFELLER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been rumored that you furnished funds to help finance the disruption of the 1972 Democratic Convention. Is that true?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. It is not true, sir, and I am very grateful to President Ford for having caused an investigation to be made immediately when that rumor was brought to the White House when he was considering his nominee and turned over to Mr. Jaworski and the FBI and they came back with a totally negative answer.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that you recognize that it is our obligation to the public to lay these matters out on the record and set them to rest.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. And I appreciate it, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you ever contacted by any person to furnish funds for any purpose connected with any of the problems of the former Vice President Agnew?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Before or after his retirement?

The CHAIRMAN. Either.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. After, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What was the nature of that contact?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. An inquiry by Mr. Agnew himself.

The CHAIRMAN. And did you, in fact, furnish funds for any purpose?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. It wasn't funds. It was the opportunity to help in connection with the book and I did not.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not help?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So that while you have been contacted you have not furnished funds for any purpose connected with any of the problems of the former Vice President Agnew?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, I do not think it would be fair to leave this that he asked for funds. What he was really asking for was for someone to sponsor or finance the payments in advance on a book. I guess there was no question he needed help and these things are very difficult.

The CHAIRMAN. But you neither gave assistance nor gave funds for that purpose?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. No.

I have had two letters, I think, from Mr. Ehrlichman asking me to contribute to his defense.

The CHAIRMAN. What was your response?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, in a sense from a human point of view I am embarrassed to say that I did not answer the letters.

The CHAIRMAN. So you did not contribute funds for those purposes? Mr. ROCKEFELLER. No, sir, although I knew him during the years he was working for the President. I worked closely with him in connection with the problems of the State of New York and from a human point of view these things are very sad.

The CHAIRMAN. Between 1964 and 1973 you and your wife reported a total of gifts and donations of something in excess of $25 million. Will you explain how much of that total was given for charitable purposes and how much might have been distribution of family-type gifts!

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I can answer it very easily. It would appear in the tax returns. I will get the figures for you. They may well be in the sheet I gave you on the last 10 years. I will look, but if it is not I will supply it to you.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you bring that out for the record?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes.

[The information referred to, subsequently supplied to the committee by Mr. Rockefeller, is as follows:]

As reported in our Federal gift tax returns between January 1964 and December 1973, my wife and I made charitable contributions of approximately $14.5 million. During this period, gifts of approximately $5.9 million were made to family members, either outright or in trust.

The CHAIRMAN. Yesterday I furnished to your staff some charts, the first entitled "Assets of Nelson A. and Margaretta Rockefeller for Revised Statement of Net Worth as of August 23, 1974" based on your total reported assets of $64,154,238 which does not include the valuation of the trust. The chart purports to show the percentage of your assets in the various types of investments.

For example, art, jewelry, coins, securities, real estate, and so forth. The next chart shows a percentage source of income for yourself and your wife for 1973.

The next one is "Nature of Securities Owned Directly, as of August 23," showing the percentage by types.

The next one is the "Assets of Trust No. 1" for your benefit, showing the percentage of types of investments; and the next one, the "Sources of Income Received from Trust No. 1" for your benefit for 1973, showing the percentages of distribution thereof.

The next, "Assets of Trust No. 2" for your benefit as of June 28, 1974, showing the percentages of investments by type; and the next, the "Sources of Income Received from Trust No. 2" for your benefit for 1973, showing the sources by percentage type.

Is that a fair representation? Are those charts a fair representation pictorially of what you have given to us for the record?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Sir, I went over them this morning, and I must say, Senator, I was filled with admiration that your staff could produce something like this when mine never did.

So, I am grateful to you.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, without objection these charts will be made a part of the record at this point.

[The charts referred to follow:]