Our State constitution, we call it clemency in New York State, you can only give clemency or pardon after someone is convicted. And, therefore, I never had this problem, but I had, according to the procedures that were in the constitution that we established, thorough examination of any claimant for pardon or clemency, counsel's office, discussing with the judge, the district attorney, the prosecuting attor neys, giving the background, and went into it very thoroughly, and then held hearings. If it was a pardon during the period when we had the death sentence, I held public hearings, so that I have had experience with this, and I think that one should, to the maximum degree possible, carry out the responsibilities, but let us say in the case of the Federal Government, the provision is that there can be a pardon.

Now, prior to this action, there is not a great body of experience yet in this field, but I think one has to look at that as being part of the framework of responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no question that constitutional authority exists for a President to grant a pardon. However, you have indicated through implication that you would let the judicial processes run their course, and then consider a pardon after that time as evidenced by the one case that you used with the commutation of sentence. I think that was the Morhouse case, or at least one of them.

Let me ask very precisely, if a President resigned his office before his term expired would you, as his successor, use the pardon power to prevent or terminate any investigation or criminal prosecution against the former President?

Senator GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, would you accede the floor for a comment?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator GRIFFIN. I think it is important for the record to note that the question that the chairman is putting to Mr. Rockefeller is a dif ferent question than the question he put to Mr. Ford.

Just to be sure that there would be no misunderstanding, and I am sure the chairman would want it this way, let me read again

The CHAIRMAN. Now Senator, I do not want this question to get confused with the question put to Mr. Ford. This is a precise question I am putting to the witness here now. I want a precise answer on this question so there will be no misunderstanding in the future.

Senator GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, we will agree that it is a different question to Mr. Rockefeller.

The CHAIRMAN. No doubt about it. It is a different question. I very specifically asked it. On your time you can develop that aspect as you see fit.

Senator HUGH SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, would the chairman be willing to pose his question within the framework of article II, section 2 of the Constitution?

The CHAIRMAN. It is obviously within that framework. I am asking specifically this question: If a President resigned his office before his term expired would you, as his successor, use the pardon power to prevent or terminate any investigation or criminal prosecution against. the former President?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. Chairman, my total inclination is to say, "no," and I can assure you that I would follow the procedures I followed in the past as Governor, and that I believe deeply in the right

of people to know. But I do not think that I should at this point say that I will amend the Constitution of the United States by anticipating some circumstances which I do not know, and renounce the power which the Constitution gives to a future President, or to the President.

So I have to say that, because I just feel deeply about the Constitution, and if the Founding Fathers wrote that provision in the Constitution, I do not want to, here before this distinguished committee, to amend the Constitution.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not trying to get you to attempt to amend the Constitution, but this relates to a question of timing. I do not think you have renounced your constitutional right if you answered no to the question, but that would still mean you had the power to pardon after the judicial process had been carried out.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. My total reaction is to say, and to agree with you, that I would let the thing run. I just do not want to get into the box which my predecessor, the Vice President, got into by being frank and open, and finding whatever the circumstances were, which I do not know, other circumstances which at the time he was not aware of, and, therefore, changed his point of view.

I just think I take the responsibility very heavily, and I feel very strongly about the Constitution. I share totally your feeling about the right and need of the constitutional process which you referred to in relation to prosecution in general prosecution running the course. The CHAIRMAN. On another subject, the economic power which you and your family exert directly and indirectly upon the domestic and international economy in oil, real estate, banks, insurance, and many other endeavors, gives rise to a question which must be paramount in the minds of many citizens. That question is: How can you conduct yourself in office in a manner that would avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest when decisions you will be called upon to make cannot help but influence the profits and losses of one or more of your holdings?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think you are touching now on something that I hope we are going to spend a great deal of time on, because there is a presumptive assumtion here in the opening part of your statement as to the tremendous economic power which I have.

I have to tell you I do not wield economic power. I own some securities in my own name, which total $12 million, of which about $5 million are in real estate, and Latin American corporations.

Therefore, the securities which are in my name outright are about $12 million. The securities in the trust are there. I have no control over them. I have no relation to the bank. I have no relation to these corporations.

I have to say to you, sir, and members of this committee, that this myth about the power which my family exercises which needs to be brought out into the light. There was even a story in the papers, one of the New York newspapers, that this committee would only see the tip of the iceberg, with a picture of my hair, with just my ears sticking up above. The rest would be some mysterious subtle thing. It just does not exist. Therefore, we need to examine that question.

40-185 0-74 - 3

But I would like to say that I have but one concern, and that is to do the best job I can, should I be in this position, should I be confirmed, for the United States, and there would be no conflict. There could be no conflict with anything because my sole purpose is to serve our country.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it certainly is a most lofty purpose. I am delighted to hear you say that.

But I still must dwell somewhat on this vast economic power that you say you do not have. I point out that you and the members of your family, and the various foundations and trusts, of which your family is a part, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and various other types of holdings contain combined assets which you and I both know exceed $12 billion.

Now, that has a tremendous economic impact, even from the name alone. This is the thing that really gives me some concern. Many actions you take, or you would be called upon to take, would have an impact on some of those vast holdings, or some of those vast holdings might have an impact on some of the actions you might take.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, I understand the question. I agree with you it is the most important thing we have before us. But I have to analyze the structure.

I have given you the securities which I own outright. I have given you securities in the trust, over which I have no control, either as to investment, and I have to be perfectly honest, that I do not occupy myself even to read the list of securities. They are very able men and women who run this trust, and I do not follow the securities.

I am aware of the fact, obviously, that there are oil stocks in there, because those are the ones which were in the trust when it was created. It has been diversified.

As far as the foundations are concerned, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund is the only one with which I am associated. The money is invested by a bank. We have no control over it, and no relation to it. The big funds of the Rockefeller Foundation, and so forth, are run by organizations which are in no way controlled by the family.

I think that there are members of the family on most of those boards, but they are there as one member of the Board. Now I know this does not fit the popular book any more than the concept, and therefore I am so grateful for this opportunity to try to bring it into perspective.

The stock in these foundations is not used, or not abused by any member of the family in any way in relation to influence over the management of these companies.

I read a piece yesterday about this tremendous network which existed in the context through the Chase Manhattan Bank. My brother is chairman of the board of the Chase Manhattan Bank. On his board are members of other corporations. But I think that anybody who understands the free enterprise system in America today knows this system is now run by managers. It is not run by the owners, with very few exceptions, and they are not in our family, except in Rockefeller Center, and that is held in a trust. There are no family ownerships. This was one of the major things which my grandfather accomplished, which was to go from private family ownership to the corporate structure with a multitude of stockholders. Today management of American corporations are not controlled by some family or indi

vidual force outside. They are people who have worked their way up through the company. They are very independent individuals, and there is not this network of control which is popularly conceived. But to answer your question, although I am commenting on the assumption, I am not beholden to any interest or to any person. Should I be confirmed in this job, my sole and only criteria for decision on any subject would be what I felt in my best judgment, based on a lifetime of experience, was the best interest of the people of the United States of America.

The CHAIRMAN. Regardless of whether or not President Ford actually names you to head the anti-inflationary forces of this administration, as has been indicated, the fact is if confirmed as Vice President you will undoubtedly exercise great influence on vital economic policies. The record shows that during your governorship you sponsored huge public works programs, ran up the State's public debt, exploited Federal programs, and the tax load increased nearly 500 percent in New York during the 15 years you were Governor.

In view of this record, how can the American people have confidence in your ability to resolve the crisis of inflation, and restore the loss of confidence by the business community?

In other words, how do you answer the question: Can the country afford you?

For example, on this very day President Ford was in Detroit to address a World Energy Conference. Policies he will enunciate will vitally affect the oil and gas industries in which you and your family and your trusts and your foundations have a huge stake.

Now, does not that raise a rather serious conflict between the public Mr. Rockefeller and the private Mr. Rockefeller. That is the big question which I have.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, I would have to say, Mr. Chairman, there seems to be some conflict in what you say, because you said I lost business confidence, and then you implied that I am representing business. So I could not do both at once. But I would have to go back to the start of your question.

I came to the governorship in 1959. We were faced with a major deficit, and I thought we were following, the State was then following unsound fiscal policies. So I asked for $288 million of tax, or $277 million. This was including an increase in the income tax.

This was the most difficult battle I had when I was in the governorship, because it was a difficult period, but I felt that we needed to get on a sound financial basis. I finally succeeded in getting the votes in the legislature, and the tax increase was passed.

We were then on a pay-as-you-go basis until the Johnson landslide, when both houses of the legislature were captured by the Democrats. At that time we had a large quantity of bonds that had been authorized but unused for highway construction, university construction, et cetera, which as we were on a pay-as-you-go basis we had not used. The comptroller, at a dinner, told me that when I said we had to have cuts in the budget or an additional tax increase, said oh, no, we are going to use those authorized bonds which you did not use for cur

rent revenue.

Well, luckily he told me before the end of the old session, so that we got a bill through impounding those funds, the legislature did it, to be

only used for highway construction, the purposes for which the people voted for them, and that took care of that.

After that they were anxious to use bonds, and so from that time on we did use the bonds, because they wouldn't approve of using current revenue for capital expenditures. So we did use the bonds. So I point out to you that transition came with the Democratic legislature, not the Republican.

Now, I had one other very fundamental belief, and that was I believed in self-liquidating financing. The user pays. In other words, I feel that you can sell bonds for important activities, if the beneficiary of the activity pays, in order to pay the interest and amortization on the bond, rather than the general public. That is why I went to the use of authorities.

They were criticized, but they were in a longstanding tradition of the State started by Al Smith with the Port Authority.

Now, as to the increases, and when you talk about increasing the State debt, the increase in the State debt was primarily not full faith and credit tax bonds. They were bonds sold for authorities which were what we call moral obligation bonds.

Now, let me come back to the increase in taxes, and the increase in expenditures. I have here in front of me the figures for the period 1960 to 1972, which was when I was Governor.

During that period New York State expenditures went up 300 percent. This is not taxes. This is total expenditures. During that same period State expenditures, nationwide, went up 245 percent. So then, we were about 20 percent more than the rest of the country as an

average.

Now, let me explain to you why. I happen to believe that the government closest to the people is the best government and, therefore, I am very strong for local government. So New York State, under my administration, constantly increased State aid to local government, to a point where 62 cents of every dollar in taxes the State collects goes back to local government to help them meet their responsibilities to the people at the local level. We are No. 1 among all States in the Nation on the amount of money per capita going back to local government. I think it is sound.

We use the income tax because it is a fair tax, a broad base tax, it is a progressive tax, and we felt it was fairer than the real estate tax that local government had to use primarily for their purposes. So this is where the largest share of increase in our expenditures went.

New York State is No. 47 among States in the amount of money it spends per capita on State government. So we are on the top of the list on what we give to local government, and the bottom of the list on what we do for State government expenditures.

I have to say to you, sir, in my opinion the Federal Government has to do more in the direction in which you started so beautifully with revenue sharing, which is to help government get closer to the people, meet their responsibilities with unrestricted funds so that those funds can be used responsively to the benefit of the people at the local level.

Now, just one more thing: If the community had been so opposed to my policies in terms of expenditures and taxation, they had the opportunity three times after I was first elected to repudiate me and