It is ironic, as the late Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher said, "that those who oppose and those who favor legalization of abortion share a common goal-the elimination of all abortions. The difference is that while antiabortionists believe this can be accomplished by tough, punitive statutes, the abortion law reformers point to evidence showing that these laws have never worked in the past, and never will."

The clergy has formed a new organization; I am here as a member of the New York Cochapter of the Coalition for Abortion Rights; a pamphlet relating to it is in your packet.

The organization fully supports Governor Rockefeller's record in this field, and urges that his record on abortion legislation be held in his favor in your deliberations.

May I also ask your indulgence to add a personal word, to add my full and unqualified endorsement to the confirmation of Governor Rockefeller as Vice President of the United States. I have known him and worked with him for 16 years.

As chairman of the Assembly Standing Committee on Education, in a State that spends $8 billion in State and local taxes on education, I believe I know him as well as most legislators. He is an intelligent, energetic man. His goals are sound. His methods are honest. I wholeheartedly endorse his nomination.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Cook; that is a very fine statement you have made.

This morning when Mr. Golden was testifying, I asked him whether or not Mr. Rockefeller vetoed the repealing enactment before he was reelected, and the testimony was to the effect that, no, he had been elected earlier.

I would like to ask you, was he then reelected by the people after the repeal of that abortion amendment?

Ms. COOK. The sequence, as I recall, and I am one of those who thought it was all over, and stored away all my files, so it is based on recollection. The bill was passed in the spring of 1970, there was an election that fall, where this was very much an issue.

Governor Rockefeller was reelected, I was reelected, most of us were reelected.

The following year, all kinds of proposals came in, modifications, repeals, and so on. I do not recall any action taken that year.

I think the next year, the spring of 1972, when the repeal occurred, and the Governor vetoed it. He has not, of course, stood for election since the initial reaction, the election of 1970 vote.

The CHAIRMAN. When he was questioned before the committee, on this issue, he stated, as I recall, that the original abortion law, in his mind, extended the period in which abortions could take place for too long a period. He therefore recommended a shortening of the period. and when the issue came up in the legislature, that is when the termination of the abortion law was attempted, that he then exercised his

veto.

Is that the sequence of events as you recall?

Ms. Cook. Very likely. I remember very well it occurring. I am sorry that I cannot really pin down the year, but I think it probably was, it could have been the same year, yes.

Certainly those proposals were made in both years, in 1971 and 1972. And the proposals for lowering the time limit, no one believes in those late term abortions, except in extreme circumstances.

This is why I wanted an outright repeal.

We would have fewer late term abortions than under the present situation. But we did not want to be restrictive about medical practice, so that is why we finally compromised on the 24-week period, which had an historic, not a scientific, background.

The Governor came in, after the first year, as soon as we started getting statistics under the new law, that is when the proposal was made, and proposed to lower the period so there would not be so many late term abortions.

Actually, what happened, a lot of women had waited too long, because the law was going into effect, some waited for the law to go into effect to have abortions, and it distorted those statistics. They have vastly improved since then.

By 1972, he did propose a 16-week period.

I met with him, I myself was prepared, I think I even introduced a bill to lower the term. I forget whether it was 22, or what number. But I was prepared to compromise, too, even though I did not like the idea.

I recall very distinctly meeting with him with a group of doctors, experts in the field, technical people, and the discussion frankly was quite a bit over my head, because it simply related to the technical aspects of the late term abortions, and the dangers to the mother, and the question of maternal health.

It was agreed then, and really no serious consideration was given to whether 16 weeks from then on. But the 18-20 week proposals could not get through the legislature.

We were stalled then, and the truth of the matter was that no one wanted to touch it. No one wanted to go either way, relating to abortion. So it was, in my opinion, a tacit understanding by all concerned on both sides of the aisle, that nothing would be done.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Griffin?

Senator GRIFFIN. Is the right title assemblywoman?

Ms. Cook. The proper title is member of the assembly, but I answer to anything.

Senator GRIFFIN. Your statement indicates that the American people support the proabortion position and your literature in your statement says, "All recent public opinion polls show that a majority of the American people support abortion rights."

I would like to direct your attention to the fact that referendum elections on the issue have been held in Michigan and North Dakota, reference to which was made earlier by one of the other witnesses.

In both of those situations-and I can testify with regard to Michigan, even though some of the polls indicated what your literature recites, when it came to a vote of the people, the people turned the proposition down.

In Michigan, almost by a 2 to 1 margin.

Do you know of any other referendum, in addition to those two, and do you have any explanation for that?

Ms. Cook. I believe there was a referendum on the west coast, I believe Oregon, where an attempt to be restrictive about it was defeated. I certainly have an explanation. No problem there.

Just as Mr. Golden stated, there was the most sophisticated wellfinanced, well-organized drive to repeal that law that Mr. Golden had

ever seen. Certainly the most sophisticated that I had ever seen, in connection with the repeal legislation, which was just a big hoax in Michigan, because everybody knew the Governor was going to veto it. He is a man of his word.

When he says something, that is what he means.

So the whole thing was a hoax anyway. But it still was an enormous effort, lobbying effort, and I know that did occur to a high degree in Michigan in the last few weeks just prior to the actual taking of the poll, and this sort of thing has its effect.

But when you go to the people, even as the Catholic Church did to its own people, as Ms. Burris testified, or you gentlemen with your own polls really go to the people with a reasonably fair sampling and reasonably fair questionnaire, it comes out astonishingly in favor.

In fact, one of my colleagues who was very much against it, put out a poll where he said, "Do you believe in killing unborn babies?" A huge number of people wrote back and said, "Yes."

I think I would have had trouble with that questionnaire. I was astonished that he got as many positive responses as he did.

So, there is no doubt in my mind that the public likes the present situation, and there is no doubt in my mind that the whole problem is created by the highly financed, well-organized activities of the right to life associations supported by certain churches, which have reached into every community.

But what happens when the people get into their own poll booth and pull that lever?

The polls get better and better as a matter of fact.

Senator GRIFFIN. I will have to say in my State I think that both sides of the issue are very well organized, very articulate presenting their arguments and positions to the people.

I certainly would agree with you, that what happens with respect to a poll depends an awful lot on how you ask the questions.

If you ask the people, do you think that you should eliminate corruption in politics by public financing campaigns, a large percentage will say yes.

If you ask them do you think your tax dollars ought to be given to politicians who run that campaign, a large percentage will say no. I rather suspect that it depends a lot on how those questions on abortion are presented.

The fact does remain that in the two instances where the people had the right to vote directly on the proposition, the majority did not turn the proposition down.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Williams?

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your statement very much. But there was a lot of publicity as I dimly recall at the time of the passage of the abortion law in New York.

Was there a member of Watertown that took the lead in the passage of the law?

Ms. COOK. No.

I would like to say immodestly I was the principal sponsor and the principal negotiator of this bill. There was a member from the county just above me who lost his seat.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, this is the one who got the publicity.

Ms. Cook. He got the publicity and loads of contributions which I thought it was lovely of people to send.

Gentlemen, it would be nice to get a few myself.

Yet, that is very significant, he was George Michaels. He was a Democrat running in a Republican area, a good popular man, a good legislator, no doubt about it.

He had in the past voted against abortion bills. He came to me one day and said, in good conscience, if my vote is the vote, if my vote is the vote that controls the bill one way or the other, then I must go with you.

So I knew in advance that he would do that. This is one of the reasons that the vote was not as close to me as it seemed to be to others. So he did that. When they called the roll, the first time around, he abstained, and when he was called the second time, it became perfectly apparent that his vote would be the determining vote, he switched. Senator WILLIAMS. Well, I have no other questions.

I am glad to hear what you said about the attention to education in New York under Governor Rockefeller. I certainly hope President Ford will avail himself of counsel in this area.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

We appreciate you giving your views.

The committee will stand in recess long enough to vote and return. [Short recess.]

The CHAIRMAN. We will now come to order.

Ms. Mary Joyce Johnson, vice president, National Lawyers Guild. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?

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

Ms. JOHNSON. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Ms. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF MS. MARY JOYCE JOHNSON, VICE PRESIDENT NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Ms. JOHNSON. My name is Mary Joyce Johnson, and I am vice president of the National Lawyers Guild.

With me on my right is Bob Hitt, who is also a guild member.

I would like to thank the chairperson and members of this committee for allowing the National Lawyers Guild to testify today against the nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller as Vice President of the United States.

The National Lawyers Guild is an organization of over 4,000 lawyers, law students, legal workers, and jailhouse lawyers. We have a 37-year history of fighting various forms of social injustice in this country.

The National Lawyers Guild is strongly opposed to the nomination of Nelson Rockefeller, in terms of Rockefeller as an individual and in terms of the process by which he will assume office.

This nomination is the illegitimate act of an illegitimate President. As we submitted last November before the House Committee on the Judiciary, in testimony opposing Gerald Ford's nomination as Vice President, the 1972 Presidential election was unlawful and fraudulent

and Richard Nixon's claim to the office of President was therefore invalid. We believe that, as a consequence, Nixon was without lawful authority to appoint his own successor.

Today, we face a situation in which that original fraud has been compounded-a Vice Presidential nomination by a man not chosen by the people and elevated to the Presidency after selection by his discredited predecessor. The American people are asked to give allegiance to a Government whose highest officials have never received popular support in the form of a lawful national Presidential election.

No amount of committee investigation, disclosure of financial holdings, political qualification, or the like, can erase the fact that the people have had no participation whatsoever in the selection of their national leadership.

We submit that these circumstances impose upon the Senate and the House of Representatives the responsibility to determine whether or not this current nomination has the support of the poor and working people who constitute a majority of the U.S. electorate; in other words, whether or not the poor and working people of this country believe that Rockefeller would act in their best interests.

Rockefeller's nomination to the Vice Presidency, however, transcends the issue of legitimacy of process. It poses such a direct threat to democratic institutions here and abroad that we, in the National Lawyers Guild, feel a special obligation to voice many of the objections being raised across this country and around the world.

We are told in the media that the primary objection to Mr. Rockefeller's accession to the Vice Presidency is his enormous wealth.

Mr. Rockefeller has responded to this obvious charge by attempting to minimize his holdings, first placing his worth at $33 million, then revising that figure upward to $182 million.

Some members of this body have already stated it would be a mistake to demand that Rockefeller be forced to divest himself of his personal fortune, citing the chaos that would create on Wall Street. These people feel that full disclosure of his holdings would be sufficient to keep him from promoting policies which would benefit himself at the expense of the American people.

We take issue with the way the issue of Mr. Rockefeller's fortune has been framed. These examinations of Nelson Rockefeller's personal worth serve to obscure the fundamental realities of the Rockefeller family fortune and the control it exercises over the lives of the people in this Nation and the world. We cannot consider one man or merely that property which is his through outright ownership. We must view Nelson Rockefeller as part of an integrated family empire, and we must evaluate that financial empire, not only in terms of its dollar and cents worth, but in terms of the control it exerts across the national boundaries, penetrating the inner circles of our Government and those of other nations.

It is impossible and misleading to separate Nelson Rockefeller from the international web of the entire Rockefeller family.

That family, whose fortune originated in the era of the robber barons with the development of the Standard Oil Trust, has a virtual stranglehold on this Nation's economy.

Consider that the Rockefeller family controls, not owns, but controls 25 percent of the assets of the 50 largest banks in this country and 30 percent of the assets of the 50 largest insurance companies.