history has enjoyed. It is this system. This system is not an empire. It is a democracy.

It is not controlled by our family in any aspect overall or in pieces of it.

The point at which the major control was achieved of one industry was when my grandfather was with the Standard Oil Company. He developed that company on an integrated basis worldwide.

At that time the U.S. Government acted and there was a dissolution decree and the company was broken up into 33 companies so as to restore competition.

So that this is where the functioning of the free enterprise system and Government works. If the free enterprise system is abusing any aspect in terms of public interest, the Government acts, Federal Government, State government, local governments. This is our system. It is a great system. To go back to my brother Laurance, he has shown this ability and interest because he is interested in society. He worked in the Navy during the war and was interested in the whole scientific side of the developments that are taking place to apply to the life of our community, our country, and he has been successful in some and unsuccessful in others.

Senator ROBERT C. BYRD. May I interrupt you there, Governor, if you don't mind?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. NO.

Senator ROBERT C. BYRD. Let me break my question down into three parts.

We both agree with respect to the system. The question is this: Would not the fact that your considerable wealth when joined to the not inconsiderable power of the Vice Presidency, possibly later the Presidency, would this not lead as a matter of course to greater enrichment of the Rockefeller family's holdings?

It seems to me that you could answer "yes" or "no", "perhaps", or "not automatically" or "not necessarily."

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, let us take that question first.

Considerable wealth, yes.

Power of the Vice President to persuasion, yes, in the Government I assume.

If the Nation comes out of depression-out of the inflation and avoids a depression, then everybody in the Nation is going to benefit. So that indirectly I would have to say "Yes."

If I were able to help the President, the Congress and in the reestablishment of stable prices and full employment, that this would benefit everybody.

But if your question means that would special interest, special interest in this case being investment I would assume, be benefited by my action, the answer is emphatically "No."

Senator ROBERT C. BYRD. Then Mr. Rockefeller, let me proceed quickly-I know my time is up-to the last part of the question.

Would the combination of these two-great economic wealth plus great political power-in your judgment clothe the office of the Vice Presidency or the Presidency with an inordinately great power, certainly a far greater power than either of those offices would ordinarily clothe the average occupant whose financial means is much less than yours?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think the answer to that is "No," with one exception.

Because of experience in private enterprise, in academic and philanthropic activities, cultural fields, government at the local level, State level, national level, I have been very fortunate in having a broad range of experience. Through that experience I have met a great many people in all of these fields who have outstanding capabilities. To the degree that that background put me in a position to understand the problems and to know people who effectively deal with these problems, then it might inure to the effectiveness of the office.

But if you are thinking of it in terms of this colossal economic power that you mentioned earlier, that does not exist. That implies control, it mentions stranglehold. These things do not exist.

We have investment but not control.

Senator ROBERT C. BYRD. But what you are saying then is that if there is a greater power as a result of the combination of these two, it can be used to a greater good?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That is right.

Senator ROBERT C. BYRD. As well as to a possible greater injury to the American people?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, I do not think that the economic power— well, to begin with if I had spent a lifetime abusing economic power I would not be sitting here, I have to assume, today, because this is an open book and it would have long since been uncovered and that would have been the end.

Therefore, I can only say that the experience can be useful. Judgment grows out of experience but power is essential to run a government or to manage a corporation or to run a labor union or whatever it is. Power-money can be power for good or power for evil. So power per se is not bad.

Power per se is good or bad depending on how it is used. Power is essential. This Nation has to have power if we are going to preserve freedom and the opportunity for our people. If we use it wisely it would be for good. If we use it wrong, in a wrong way, it would be bad. Senator ROBERT C. BYRD. Thank you. Mr. Rockefeller.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rockefeller.

We will stand in recess until 2:30 o'clock this afternoon.

[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 o'clock, p.m., of the same day.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Senator Griffin.

Senator GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I ask several questions, Mr. Rockefeller, I want to take a few moments of my time to do as I indicated earlier, and that is to set the record straight.

I think it is important, in fairness to President Ford, and also in terms of the history that is made as a result of these hearings.

Now, the strong implication has been left that Mr. Ford, when he appeared before this committee, was asked the same question that was put to Mr. Rockefeller this morning. The question was to the effect

that if he were to become President, would he exercise the power of the pardon with respect to a former President prior to conviction.

I think it is important to have the record clear that such a question was not put to Mr. Ford as a nominee appearing before this committee. While there is room for misunderstanding perhaps as a result of the wording of the question and the answer, I think that we ought to go back and carefully read what the question was that the chairman put to Mr. Ford at that time, and what his answer was.

I read the question from page 124 of the hearing record:

The CHAIRMAN. If a President resigned his office before his term expired, would his successor have the power to prevent or to terminate any investigation or criminal prosecution charges against the former President?

Notice the question was not whether or not the witness would exercise such a power of pardon prior to conviction, the question was would he have the power.

Mr. Ford's response: "Would he have the authority?"

Trying to find out for certain what was the question.

The question is: Would he have the authority.

"The Chairman. Yes, would he have the power?"

In other words, he was asking Mr. Ford for a legal opinion of whether or not a President who came into office under those circumstances would have the legal authority prior to conviction to grant a pardon.

Now, Mr. Ford's direct response was: "whether he would have the technical authority or not, I cannot give you a categorical answer."

He was being truthful. It is a legal question. I do not think he knew at that point whether or not it was legally and constitutionally possible for a President to grant a pardon prior to conviction.

Now, he volunteered this assessment: "I do not think the public would stand for it."

He may not be inaccurate in that assessment.
The CHAIRMAN. He was very accurate.

Senator GRIFFIN. But that does not go to the question. It does not relate to the question of whether or not a President has the authority. I only spell that out for the purpose of making certain that we understand that Mr. Ford was not asked the precise question that Mr. Rockefeller was asked.

Now, Mr. Rockefeller, let me focus on some other matters. Earlier, I think a week or so ago, there were reports in the press that your net worth was some $33 million, supposedly based on statements furnished to this committee.

Now, in the material you furnished to the committee today, your net worth is given at $62 million. I think it may be important for the benefit of the public generally to have some brief explanation as to why those figures are different.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Senator, I appreciate very much your giving me the opportunity to make that point. The figure of $33 million was a figure that was submitted at the request of the committee by me, giving net worth which had three differences from the subsequent figure. They were as follows:

I showed $20 million in art and real estate as having been pledged, and showed that as a deduction from net worth in view of the fact

that I pledged it to public use, but it was clearly included. It was there. That was not mentioned when the material was leaked.

Second, the committee asked me-we gave the information immediately that we had, which was in the many instances cost valueor earlier appraisals. They asked for updated appraisals.

Therefore, that accounted-we got additional appraisals-that accounted for about $8 million, and then this left about $1 million of other items in detail. But it was because we got the material together rapidly. I deducted, thinking that that was a logical picture, in view of the fact that there were commitments on $20 million of art and real estate, that it was to be given, publicly committed, and I have now included the art as part of assets, but then showed it as a pledged gift, and I have updated the appraisals both on art and real estate. May I add one other thing? Subsequently, the committee asked for additional information relating to the children. So yesterday we submitted to the committee, or on Saturday, we submitted to the committee information regarding the children's holdings, and that was then included this morning in my remarks in the information that had been given to the committee on Saturday, and that involved about $35 million, together with $3.8 million in trusts for my wife's benefit during her lifetime.

Now, unfortunately, as these things come out it indicates that there is a constant shifting of the figures. It is not a constant shifting of the figures. It is giving information requested.

Senator GRIFFIN. Mr. Rockefeller, I think it would be fair to say that a group known as the Liberty Lobby is not exactly out plugging for your confirmation. I am getting a lot of mail in opposition, some of it generated by information circulated by the Liberty Lobby. And according to some of these letters there is some indication that in 1966, you paid only $685 in income tax, which would be contrary to the information that Senator Cook already put into the record.

Have you heard this charge before, and would you speak to it? Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Yes. When I was asked by the committee to submit my tax returns for the past 7 years, the information they first gave out was that the eighth year was the year that I had not paid. Then when I gave the FBI 10 years' records, they said the 11th year was the year I had not paid.

And as I stated in my statement this morning. I paid taxes every year from 1932 on, a total of $69 million, and the only year that I did not pay income tax was 1970, and that was the year the trust made the sales, and Senator Cook brought out I paid the trusts, capital gains plus myself, paid over $7 million in taxes.

Senator GRIFFIN. The figure for 1966 for Federal income taxSenator Cook. I think, if the Senator would yield, it is a very interesting year also, because that is the year he paid very, very little gift tax to the Federal Government. His income tax that year was $1,715,193. His gift tax was $4,098, for a total to the Federal Government of $1.719.291. Add to that his State income tax of $299,000, and all of the rest of the city, and various and sundry State taxes, made a total of $2.212.411 in 1966. I made reference to that this morning.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Thank you.

Senator GRIFFIN. Another item that the Liberty Lobby is circulating reads like this:

Nelson and David Rockefeller are the organizers of the Bilderberg conferences, the sinister clique of super rich international cartelists, bankers, politicians, journalists, who meet secretly to plan wars and revolutions, currency devaluations, international projects.

I wonder, Mr. Rockefeller, if you could shed some light on what the Bilderberg conferences are, and whether they have the sinister objectives and purposes?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I was only in one meeting, and that was this last year, and I detected no sinister effort. These conferences were organized by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands after the formation of NATO, with the idea of bringing the Atlantic community, government officials, ex-government officials, public, private citizens from those countries together for an informal discussion of the problems which the countries face, and how we could work more closely together within NATO and the European area, and between the United States and Canada and the European members of NATO.

This year was my first visit. I found it a very useful and interesting discussion. There was a paper prepared by a member of the Brookings Institution representing the United States. There was a paper by an ex-head of the Foreign Office, civil servant head of the Foreign Office from Great Britain, and one from Germany, and one from France.

The French paper was presented by the editor and publisher of Le Monde in Paris.

At our meeting there I happened to sit next to the Under Secretary of Defense of the new government in England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was there. Rather amusing situation as far as he was concerned. He made a very strong speech at that meeting, talking about the new government in England withdrawing from NATO, from the European-not NATO-European Economic Community, and mentioned on various occasions the high cost to his government and the fact that his constituents have some questions about, I do not know how many, over £1 billion that it had cost, both directly and indirectly.

There was very strong and bitter opposition from both the Germans and French to his statement. I had never been to one of these before. But at the meeting, after they finished, I said, as a local politician, I read the statement by the Chancellor of Exchequer differently than was apparently read by others at the meeting.

My impression was that he was saying to the meeting, and I said this to the meeting, that if you reduce my fee, I will stay in, but we are short of cash.

And then when he spoke, he said it is very interesting that nobody in the European Community seemed to understand what I was saying. It took an American politician to get the message.

Well now, this kind of discussion is realistic, open, frank. Mr. Helmut Schmitt was there as Minister of Finance. He now is in the key position, of course, in Germany.

I think myself these are useful discussions for members of the press, members of various interested organizations, profit, nonprofit, government, present government, ex-government, to attend.

Senator GRIFFIN. Approximately how many participants are there? Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Well, they are all by invitation, and I would say that there were in the neighborhood of 200 or 300.