retired by a final maturity date of 1985, either through the redemption of serial issues, or through the operation of mandatory sinking funds.

Thereafter, the earnings from Triborough 's existing facilities would become available to support any second-lien debt that, meanwhile, might be incurred. Until 1985, however, there can be no issuance by Triborough of revenue bonds ranking equally with the $286 million Narrows Bridge bonds whose indenture has just been close-ended by agreement with holders of two-thirds of the bonds. The bonds thus to be upgraded consist of $100 million sold in 1963. Of this total, $14 million were retired in January of this year, and $14 million more are to be retired in Jan., 1971.

The 1960 issue consisted of $74 million 4 per cent term bonds due in 1985 and $26 million serial bonds due from 1970 to 1975 and bearing interest from 32 to 3 per cent. Under the accord with the bondholders, the 4 per cent term bonds will pay out 44 per cent and the serials from 34 per cent to 4 per cent.

The $100 million borrowing in 1961 was on $60 million of 34 per cent term bonds due in 1985 an issue which will now bear 4 per cent-and $40 million serial bonds due from 1970 to 1977 and bearing coupons of from 34 per cent to 3.60 per cent. The serial bonds will not bear interest of from 31⁄2 per cent to 3.85 per cent.

The final issue of Narrows bonds consisted of $50 million of 31⁄2 per cent term bonds due in 1985 and $50 milion of serial obligations due from 1970 to 1978 and bearing interest of 24 per cent. The term 32s will now become 348 and the serials will become 3s and 328.

3. Abortion

Questions 1 and 2. "Do you regard human life as sacred, even if that human being has not yet been born, and even if that human life still needs the protec tive environment intended by God to keep him alive?"

"Do you believe that a mother has the right to kill her unborn child, even if that child cannot yet survive outside the womb?"

Answer. During the Hearings, Senator Pell asked me for my views on abortion and I testified fully on this subject before the Committee on September 23, 1974. My testimony appears on pages 166 to 170 of the transcript of the Hearings. Question 3. "On many occasions in the past few months, both the Senate and the House of Representatives have overwhelmingly voted to protect the life of the unborn the most recent time only a few days ago. As Vice President of the United States, and as President of the Senate, would you use your influence with the President of the United States to see that the will of Congress is upheld by signing such legislation into law? If you should succeed to the Presidency, would it violate your conscience to sign anti-abortion legislation into law?"

Answer. I am not aware of the federal legislation in this area. If I am confirmed as Vice President and should I be put in a position, either as Vice President or as President of the Senate, or, If I should succeed to the Presidency, as President, whereby my views on any legislation concerning abortion were sought or required, I would be guided by the letter and spirit of the law on this subject as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. This would be my Constitutional responsibility, and I would act accordingly in exercising any powers that I might have in any of these positions.

Question 4. "Would you supply for the record the amount of contributions which the Rockefeller Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Chase Manhattan Bank, or any other Rockefeller family interests, including personal contributions, have made to the following:

Population Council;

Population Crises Committee;

Association for the Study of Abortion;
Pathfinder Fund;

Planned-Parenthood-World Population;

Population Reference Bureau; and

UN Fund for Population Activities."

Answer. In December, 1953, I made a gift of securities worth approximately $10,250 to the Population Council, Inc. The only organization that I am connected with that has made grants to the listed organizations is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund of which I am a trustee. The Fund's grants in support of one or more of the listed organizations appear in its annual reports which are available to the

Committee and the public. I do not know what other members of my family or other organizations associated with my family have done in these areas.

Question 5. "Some of these agencies receive tax funds from HEW, AID, OEO, and so forth. Would you see any conflict of interest in recommending that the Administration increase tax funds to agencies organized and partially funded by Rockefeller interests?"

Answer. I believe that all grants and government support for non-profit organizations should be extended on the basis of merit, need and government priority. I would not as Vice President seek to advance the interests of any organization because it had received funds from members of my family or from charities associated with my family. By the same token, I do not believe that such an organization should be excluded from consideration for government support.

Questions 6., 7. and 8. "To what extent do these agencies support abortion programs as a method of family planning?"

"To what extent do these agencies support research on methods of abortion or methods of promoting abortion or of inducing people whose cultural values reject abortion to accept abortion anyway?"

"To what extent do these agencies support research, manufacture, or distribution of drugs or devices which destroy the fertilized ovum or the fetus before birth?"

Answer. I do not know the answers to these questions. I have had no contact with the programs and policies of the agencies to which you refer and the information you have requested would have to be supplied by them.

Question 9. "How many induced abortions have been performed in New York State since you signed the New York abortion statute into law?"

Answer. I do not have the information requested, but believe it can be obtained from the New York State Department of Health. In considering this question. I think it is also important to have statistics with respect to the number of illegal abortions that were carried out in New York before the new law took effect. In this connection, I would like to refer Senator Helms to the testimony of the Honorable Constance E. Cook when she testified before the Committee in September. Assemblywoman Cook's testimony appears on pages 615 to 623 in the transcript of the Hearings.

Question 10. "Does Chase Manhattan Bank make loans to abortion clinics or centers, or otherwise support their operations?"

Answer. I have no knowledge of the lending policies of the Chase Manhattan Bank.

Nizon-Ordered Wiretaps

Question 1. "At any time during the administration of President Nixon, was any information regarding wiretaps transmitted to you from White House or other sources?"

Question 2. "At the time that this information came to you did you have any reason to believe that the persons transmitting this information were doing so without the approval of their superiors?"

Question 3. "Did you pass on to Dr. Kissinger, or any other person, any information regarding wiretaps that you received from such sources?"

Question 4. "Did you at any time receive any information from any source that President Nixon intended to place wiretaps on the telephones of members of Dr. Kissinger's staff?"

Answer. No information concerning any wiretaps was transmitted to me from President Nixon, or from anyone else in the White House. I first learned of the details of the wiretaps from newspaper accounts. Subsequently, Dr. Kissinger confirmed to me that wires had been tapped. That is the extent of my knowledge on all of these questions.

Question 5. "It is well-known that Dr. Kissinger formerly served as your advisor for foreign affairs. Did Dr. Kissinger continue to enjoy a confidential relationship with you after he became the Head of the National Security Council?"

Answer. Dr. Kissinger, who was formerly one of my advisors, has been a close personal friend of mine for more than eighteen years. After Dr. Kissinger resigned from my staff in 1969 to become Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, we have both been extremely sensitive to and aware of our respective positions and responsibilities, and have acted accordingly. We have never acted in a way that would compromise or adversely affect these positions and responsibilities.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. George Frain, SecretaryTreasurer, Businessmen Affected Severely by the Yearly Action Plans, Inc.

Mr. Frain, if you will stand and be sworn.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. FRAIN. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Prior to the commencement of your testimony, will you identify the people that are with you, your advisers?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE FRAIN, SECRETARY-TREASURER, BUSINESSMEN AFFECTED SEVERELY BY THE YEARLY ACTION PLANS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY PHILIP J. BROWN, PRESIDENT, AND ANTON WOOD, CONSULTANT, MINORITY PROBLEMS OF THE SMALL BUSINESSMAN

Mr. FRAIN. Mr. Chairman, I have the president of our group, Mr. Philip J. Brown, on my left, and I request that he be permitted to introduce a letter addressed to you, Mr. Chairman, and he is prepared to answer any questions.

I also have Mr. Anton Wood, who is our consultant on Minority Problems of the Small Businessman.

The CHAIRMAN. I think if they are likely to be offering testimony I think I should have them sworn as well.

Would you both stand?

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. BROWN. I do.

Mr. WOOD. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Frain, you may proceed.

Mr. FRAIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we believe the constitutional rights of small businessmen to own property are just as sacred as the rights of Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to own property. We think that the Government should protect the rights of small businessmen to own property, no less than it protects the rights of Governor Rockefeller to do so.

Unfortunately, we find in the Nation's Capital that the Government programs protect the big business interests, and displace the small businessman.

We will not take much of your time, we hope to begin by introducing our statement into the hearing record, with your kind permission, and along with it to include some newspaper articles, in particular, with these titles "Rockefellers Big Investors in D.C." Washington Post, September 22, 1974.

The article referred to was submitted earlier by Senator Helms, and may be found on page 289 of the hearings.]

"Townhouses on the Avenue." Washington Post. Editorial, December 7, 1973.

"Plan Would Create Mall From Lansburgh's Store." Washington Post, September 7, 1974.

We would also like to include a White House statement by President Johnson on signing H.R. 16175 on October 9, 1968, which established an important precedent on behalf of the President and Congress to move projects instead of kicking out people, for, as President Johnson said:

"Under this new law, the Center can be built without relocating or displacing a single District resident, and without any cost to the American taxpayer." (H.R. 16175, you may remember, relocated a chancery complex.)

The Washington Post (September 22, 1974) said this in a front page article on Governor Rockefeller and his nomination as Vice President: Congress, which must confirm him, may find the Rockefeller nomination poses a much deeper question about power in America whether the complex and largely hidden economic power which the Rockefeller family jointly holds, and which Nelson shares, which stretches across the nation's economy, and the world's, shall be twinned with the second highest political office in the land or even with the Presidency itself.

In appearing here this morning I feel like I imagine David must have felt when he faced Goliath.

I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the Public Broadcasting System. I was in Annapolis yesterday, and I saw a letter read by Senator Hugh Scott critical of NBC and CBS and ABC. However, I did not hear any praise of the PBS, and I hope that when their appropriations come up, that this committee will encourage the Congress to be generous.

The CHAIRMAN. They have properly been congratulated in the course of these hearings.

Senator HUGH SCOTT. If the chairman will yield?.

I introduced the letter praising the Public Broadcasting System, and urging the funding of their organization. They are doing an excellent job. I was hoping with the other three networks that he who runs them may read it.

Mr. FRAIN. Our view is that these proceedings are more important than Bob Hope, or the soap opera, or some of the other things that the big networks concern themselves with.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, your written statement and the other documents you have referred to will be inserted in the record following your oral presentation.

Mr. FRAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to also commend Senator Helms for his views this morning, and they seemed to us to get right to the nub of the issue.

We think that Governor Rockefeller, in charging his financial power is a myth, which he, in his answers to Senator Byrd, said it was, is a coverup almost as big as the Watergate coverup.

We will attempt to show in our testimony that the Rockefeller empire is not a myth, but has benefited richly from the displacement of 23,500 people, 70 percent of them low income blacks, and from the displacement of 750 small businessmen.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make some short impromptu remarks, to give you an overall picture of what we are trying to say.

The blacks and the small businessmen were not allowed to return to the Rockefeller-dominated area, and recently, as the Washington Post said, and I quoted on page 3 of my statement:

Recently, the L'Enfant Plaza Corporation has tried to control some development beyond its own borders in Southwest, opposing subsidized housing for poor and moderate income families and battling commercial enterprises that could compete with its own.

Now, listen to this:

The opposition has taken the form of court suits against the housing project across the Southwest Freeway, against a waterfront motel that wants to build 150 rooms instead of the 100 originally approved, against the nearby Nassif Building, which let ground floor space to a bank and a drugstore.

The legal battle over the subsidized housing has divided Southwest, with some adjacent townhouse owners siding with L'Enfant Plaza in opposition and other citizens and community groups favoring the project.

Seeking to separate the Rockefellers from this dispute, Quesada said last week, "I and I alone am responsible for that suit."

Now, it is clear enough that the Rockefeller opposition to subsidized housing, and mind you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, this is subsidized housing on only 3 acres of the 550 acre urban renewal project, which was taken in the first place with the promise, and with $180 million in Federal funds, to provide low and moderate income housing for the poor. That is what urban renewal is about. That is what Congress had in mind in adopting the urban renewal legislation in 1949.

So, from 1953 to 1965 the southwest was cleared, and the small businessmen were kicked out, 23,000 people, 70 percent of them lowincome blacks were kicked out, and in their place, instead of the subsidized housing at $17 a room or less, which was the promise under which this land was taken, we see today a $100 million Rockefeller complex.

Now, the Congress and the administration, the White House, and everybody else, said that they would never make that mistake again, and the local government swore to the same thing. But we have in Washington, the downtown part of Washington, today, attempts to displace all the businessmen in the Pennsylvania Avenue area, and in the west end area, just as in the southwest area.

There is another project which apparently has Rockefeller backing, it is backed by the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States which, we understand, has four directors from the Chase Manhattan Bank on it, and David Rockefeller was chairman, and a lot of these things are being financed by Equitable Life Assurance Society. It is a closely held corporation, and there is very little public knowledge about it. It was written up by Ferdinand Lundberg in his book "The Rich and the Super-Rich," as "vast." So it is this money which is in back of a lot of these displacement projects.

Then, in the L'Enfant Plaza project there is another proof that the small businessmen were displaced. There are only two of the 750 remaining; the Flagship and Hogate's Restaurant. Most Congressmen know about this. Most Senators know these are the only two small business places left.

What happens in L'Enfant Plaza where formerly the 750 businessmen rented space at, say, $1 a square foot, now the rent is $7.50 to $10 and more, and this makes it impossible for minority businessmen, and Mr. Anton Wood will confirm this, it makes it impossible for small businessmen, and particularly minority-owned businesses, to either get started, or to remain.