GOVERNMENT

Storage FINANCIAL OR BUSINESS INTERESTS OF ACE; Y OR EMPLOYEES OF THE SENATE

• ri 84/2, 

r 4-9/P7: 26

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS

PURSUANT TO

S. Res. 212 and S. Res. 291

_RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE

FINANCIAL OR BUSINESS INTERESTS OF ANY OFFICER OR

EMPLOYEE OR FORMER OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE

SENATE

MAY 12, 1964

PART 20

Testimony of Hon. Clifford P. Case, a U.S. Senator from

the State of New Jersey

g**5 Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules and inistration

4

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

27-211 WASHINGTON : 1964

A Tr

4:1

• KANSPi>og
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina, Chairman

CARL HAYDEN, Arizona CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky

CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania

JOSEPH S. CLARK, Pennsylvania

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

GORDON F. HARRISON, Staff Director

HUGH Q. ALEXANDER, Chief Counsel

SPECIAL STAFF FOR THE PURPOSES OF SENATE RESOLUTION 212 AND SENATE

RESOLUTION 291

LENNOX P. MCLENDON, Genera/ Counsel

W. ELLIS MEEHAN, Chief Investigator

BURKETT VAN KIRK, Associate Counsel (Minority)

JAMES H. DUFFY, Associate Counsel

II
CONTENTS

Opening statement by Senator B. Everett Jordan, chairman of the Com- Page

mittee on Rules and Administration 1763 Testimony of Hon. Clifford P. Case, a U.S. Senator from the State of New

Jersey 1764

Letter, dated April 3, 1964, from Senator Clifford P. Case to Senator B.

Everett Jordan 1764

Letter, dated April 8, 1964, from Senator B. Everett Jordan to Senator

Clifford P. Case 1764

Letter, dated May 5, 1964, from Senator B. Everett Jordan to Senator

Clifford P. Case 1764

Prepared statement of Senator Clifford P. Case submitted to the Committee on Rules and Administration 1771

Newspaper article, "No Progress—The Baker Noninvestigation," by

Roscoe Drummond (Washington Post, May 4, 1964) 1773: Articlesand editorials submitted by Senator Clifford P. Case for inclusion

in the record:

"It Won't Go Away" (Newark (N.J.) Evening News, Mar. 21, 1964)_ 1779

"Baker Case Shouldn't Go Under Rug" (Elizabeth (N.J.) Daily Journal, Mar. 23, 1964) 1780

"The Reluctant Dragons" (New York Times, Mar. 25, 1964) 1780' "Politics for Profit" (Newark (N.J.) Evening News, Apr. 1, 1964) _ 1780

"Case Insists on Baker Exposé" (Daily Journal, Elizabeth, N.J.

Apr. 1, 1964) 1781

"Senator Case vs. 'Friends'" (Philadelphia Bulletin, Apr. 1, 1964) 1781

"Is That the Smell of Death?" (Record, Hackensack, N.J., Apr. 2,

1964) 1782

"We Are Proud of Senator Case" (Asbury Park (N.J.) Evening Press,

Apr. 2, 1964) 1783

"Two Queries for All Senators" (New York Daily News, Apr. 2, 1964)_ 1783 "Reasonable Compromise" (Washington Post, Apr. 3, 1964) 1783 "Bobby Baker and Senators" (Milwaukee Journal, Apr. 3, 1964) 1784

"Is 'Something' Wrong?" (Trentonian, Trenton, N.J., Apr. 3, 1964) _ 1784

"The Case of the U.S. Senate," by Roscoe Drummond (New York

Herald Tribune, Apr. 5, 1964) 1785 "Watching the Watchdog" (Sunday Herald Tribune, Apr. 5, 1964)_ 1785

"Senator Case's Point" (New York World-Telegram, Apr. 7, 1964) _ _ 1786

"Congress Shies at 'Full Disclosure' " (Camden (N.J.) Courier-Post,

Apr. 9, 1964) 1786

"Senator Case Fights the Double Morality Standard in Congress,"

by Drew Pearson (Vineland (N.J.) Times-Journal, Apr. 9, 1964)_ _ 1787

"Necessary Toe-Stepping" (Ridgewood (N.J.) Sunday News, Apr. 12,

1964) 1787

"The Cure for Cynicism" (Record, Hackensack, N.J., Apr. 29, 1964)_ 1788

"Congressmen Fear Rising Cynicism," by John C. O'Brien (Philadelphia Inquirer, Apr. 30, 1964) 1788

"Poll Shows Doubt About Congress" (Elizabeth (N.J.) Daily Journal,

May 1, 1964) 1789

"Public Wants Congressmen To Report Fully on Finances," by

George Gallup, director, American Institute of Public Opinion _ _ _ _ 1789

"Prestige of Senate, Not Johnson, Seen Chief Baker Victim," by

Louis Harris (Washington Post, Apr. 20, 1964) 1790

In

FINANCIAL OR BUSINESS INTERESTS OF OFFICERS

OR EMPLOYEES OF THE SENATE

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 1964

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION,

TV as hing ton., D .0 .

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:35 a.m., in room 301,

Old Senate Office Building, Senator B. Everett Jordan (chairman)

presiding.

Present: Senators Jordan, Clark, Cooper, and Scott. -

Also present: Gordon F. Harrison, staff director; Hugh Q. Alexander, chief counsel; Lennox P. McLendon, general counsel; Burkett

Van Kirk, associate counsel; James H. Duffy, associate counsel; William B. Whitley, staff assistant to Senator Jordan; Walter Mote,

professional staff member; John P. Coder, printing and editorial

assistant; and W. Ellis Meehan, investigator.

The CHAIRMAN. A quorum being present, the committee will please

come to order.

Senator Case, in order that you may know your rights before this committee, and what this committee is holding this hearing about, it is necessary that I read this opening statement.

The committee is acting by direction of and under the authority of

Senate Resolution 212, agreed to October 10, 1963, and Senate Reso- lution 291, agreed to February 10,1964.

Senate Resolution 212 authorizes and directs the Senate Committee

on Rules and Administration—.

to make a study and investigation with respect to any financial or business interests or activities of any officer or employee or former officer or employee of the Senate, for the purpose of ascertaining—

(1) Whether any such interests or activities have involved conflicts of interest or other impropriety; and

(2) Whether additional laws, rules, or regulations are necessary or de- sirable for the purpose of prohibiting or restricting any such activities.

Witnesses have been interviewed by the staff and heard both in executive and public sessions. Considerable evidence has been obtained

and testimony received to date. Witnesses who have appeared previously, or who will be called in the future, possess information which

the committee believes is material and pertinent to the provisions of

the resolutions of direction and authorization and which will aid the

committee in fulfilling its legislative purpose.

The Chair advises each witness that he is entitled under the rules

of procedure of the committee to retain and be accompanied by counsel. The counsel may advise the witness of his legal rights during

the course of his testimony. Should the witness not fully understand

any question, witness may ask for clarification. Counsel, however,

shall not coach the witness, or answer for the witness.

1763
1764 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

The committee will now proceed to hear your testimony, Senator

Case. Will you please stand and be sworn in, sir? Please place your

left hand on the Bible in front of you there, sir.

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to give

before this committee in the matter now under investigation is the

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Senator CASE. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Have a seat, and you may proceed in your own manner.

TESTIMONY OF HON. CLIFFORD P. CASE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the courtesy of the chairman and of the committee in granting my request

that I appear before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Case, would you pardon me just a moment? Let me put these three letters in evidence at the beginning of

the hearing; that is, your letter to me and my letters back to you.

(The letters referred to follow:)

U.S. SENATE,

April 3, 1964.

Hon. B. EVERETT JORDAN,

Chairman, Committee on Rules and Administration,

U.S. Senate, Washington., D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JORDAN: I should like to request an opportunity to appear before

your committee in support of my proposal that the committee query all Senators

with regard to their dealings with Bobby Baker.

I believe the public has a right to know whether and to what extent the Senate

of the United States and any individual U.S. Senators have been involved with

Mr. Baker's operations.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

CLIFFORD P. CASE,

U.S. Senator.

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION,

April 8, 1964.

Hon. CLIFFORD P. CASE,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CLIFFORD: I acknowledge your letter of April 3, 1964, requesting an

opportunity to appear before the Committee on Rules and Administration in support of your "proposal that the committee query all Senators with regard to their

dealings with Bobby Baker."

Your letter will be submitted to the committee at an early meeting.

With all best regards,

Sincerely,

Hon. CLIFFORD P. CASE,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CLIFFORD: This will confirm our conversation of today's date in which I

extended an invitation to you to appear before the Committee on Rules and Administration, as you recently requested, to offer suggestions concerning the

committee's current investigation into the financial or business interests of any

officer or employee of the Senate.

B. EVERETT JORDAN, Chairman.

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION,

May 5,1964.
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1765

Upon your representation that Thursday, May 7, 1964, would not be as convenient to you as Tuesday, May 12, 1964, it was agreed that the Rules Committee

would meet on the latter date to take your testimony. The meeting will be

held at 9 a.m. in room S-221 of the Capitol.

With all best regards,

Sincerely,

B. EVERETT JORDAN, Chairman.

Senator CASE. The chairman has inserted my original request, as I

understand it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.

Senator CASE. And his initial reply which said that the matter would

be taken under consideration as to whether I would be heard or not,

and his final reply which granted the request after action by the committee. The letters do not contain my request for the right to appear

in open hearing. That request was made by me personally of the

chairman on the Senate floor last Tuesday.

The CHAIRMAN. Correct.

Senator CASE. And tentatively denied this morning, but was granted

by the chairman after a discussion with those members of the committee who are here. I am very glad that the hearing is open because I

think wherever possible committee hearings ought to be open, and

in this instance I have a very strong belief there is an additional

reason why the matter should be conducted in open session because

what we are concerned with here is the integrity of a public body, and

the public body of which we all have the honor to be members, and

the restoration of confidence in that public body. Without the hearing being conducted in the open I don't see how there is a possibility

that that purpose could be furthered.

Mr. Chairman, I asked for this hearing so that I could tell members

of the committee directly, face to face, how strongly I feel about the committee's responsibility as an agency of the Senate to get to the

bottom of what, to me, is a sordid affront to the dignity of this great

institution we serve.

When I hear of an employee of the Senate boasting that he has 10

Members of the Senate in the palm of his hand, I do a slow burn. It is difficult for me to contain my anger when I hear the talk which

everybody has heard of Bobby Baker's dealings in committee assignments, of granting or withholding his favor to persons elected by sovereign States to the greatest deliberative body in the world; of

Bobby Baker's offering $5,000 or $10,000 or any amount in campaign

contributions to Senators or senatorial candidates and of attaching

strings to such offers, in the form of commitments to vote for or against

amendment of rule 22, the filibuster rule, or for or against a continuation of oil depletion allowances, for example, or anything else. And

as I ponder these things it is hard for me to see how the Senate itself

can contain its wrath at conduct of this sort.

If anything short of the direct sale by Senators of their votes for

money could constitute a desecration of this institution, or foul the

pure stream of democracy in this country, it seems to me it is this sort of conduct, the conduct that has been reported in the Bobby Baker

case.

So, it is hard for me to believe that the committee could consider

even for a moment dropping the investigation until it is satisfied it has every fact uncovered from the beginning of Bobby Baker's con-
1766 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

nection with the Senate to the time he left with a fortune of something

over $2 million. And yet, Mr. Chairman, I must say, frankly, the

impression I have gotten, and that I think that the public has gotten,

has been of an effort to put an end to the unpleasant episode, to close

the doors, to push the whole matter aside in the hope that soon it will

be forgotten.

Now, I don't say this is the intention of the chairman or of the committee. But I do say it is the impression that the committee and the

chairman have created thus far. The press of the country have almost

uniformly reflected this view, and it has been reflected, I must say,

in all the contacts with the public that I have had since this matter

got to the point where it is now.

Mr. Chairman, I would like, if I might, to offer for inclusion in the

record at the conclusion of my statement a number of editorials and articles reflecting the view that I suggested is held by the press, the

public. Before I press that request, I would like, if I might, just to

read one of these, a recent column by Roscoe Drummond. [Reads:]

The Democratic majority of the Senate noninvestigating committee is showing positive genius in finding ways to prevent itself from getting the evidence

in the Bobby Baker case.

I don't mean that the Senate Rules Committee has been idle in its noninvestigallon. It hasn't. It has worked arduous hours in thinking up ways not to

do its work.

It has been quick and alert. When its principal potential witness—Bobby,

Baker, himself—closed one door in its face, the Democratic majority of the committee knew exactly what to do. At its own initiative it closed all the other.

doors of profitable inquiry and went right back to its work of not getting the

facts.

Most Washington correspondents are convinced that the committee closed down

its noninvestigation "just in the nick of time"; that is, before it found anything embarrassing to anybody in the Halls of Congress.

The theory must be that Baker, who used his position as secretary of the

Senate Democrats to accomplish we know not what, operated with a dead telephone in an empty office.

And if he didn't, the Senate Rules Committee is apparently determined not

to find out.

When he was first solicited for testimony, Bobby Baker let it be known that

he was very busy "writing a book." Some hands in the Senate went to furrowed

brows. "Is Bobby writing about me?" they worried.

And then when he was finally subpenaed he took the fifth amendment when

he was asked to give his name.

Whereupon the Democratic majority of the noninvestigating committee were

unanimously confident that there were no other ways of finding out to whom,

for whom, and with whom he had been doing things in the Senate for so many

years.

Obviously—

and I continue with Mr. Drummond's column—

what the people want to know, need to know, and have the right to know is

how Baker was able to manipulate government in the interests of himself and

his friends. To what extent and in what ways had individual Senators and the

Senate as a whole been involved as pawns, partners, or otherwise in the Baker

operations?

These are good questions. And there are others. Surely such questions as

these should be addressed to the 100 U.S. Senators:

"What, if any, business or financial dealings did you have with Bobby Baker?

"Did Bobby Baker ever give you, get for you, offer you, or offer to get for you

any campaign contributions—and with conditions attached?" (One Senator.

Frank E. Moss, of Utah, disclosed that he received an offer of campaign funds

from Baker and rejected the money because it was made conditional upon his

support of the oil-depletion allowance.)

6-
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1767

Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman I would like to ask if the Senator

would yield at that point in order that I may ask him a couple of

questions which I think are pertinent to what he just said.

Senator CASE. I am entirely at the hands of the committee. I think

it might be helpful if I finished my statement but, of course, I yield

to you.

Senator CLARK. It Is 10 minutes to 10. How long would it take you?

•Senator CASE. I think it will probably take 5 minutes more.

Senator CLARK. I would like to press, due to the shortage of time,

a request that I may address a question to the witness.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Senator CLARK. With 

i 

reference Senator Case, to that Roscoe

Drummond article, there is at least tone untruth in it, is there not?

Does he not state n that article that the committee had refused to

hear you?

Senator CASE. If I had finished, had been able to finish, reading the

Drummon'd article it would have appeared that at the time it was

written the committee had not acceded to my request. It was dated

the 3d of May; I have forgotten what date it was—early, I think, last

week, perhaps Monday.

Senator 'CLARK. Senator, had you not 

Senator CASE. I had then had pending for, as the date of the letter

will show 

Senator CLARK. Senator, I was under the impression you had finished reading the Drummond article and were proceeding to read your

own statement.

Senator CASE. Oh, no. My original request received was dated

April 3, a month and nearly 2 weeks ago and a month before the

Drummond piece appeared. At that time the committee had not acted

to my request for a hearing.

Senator CLARK. Does not the Drummond article state it had refused to hear you?

- Senator CASE. It recited the fact in the words that I have just

stated, which was correct at the time, that the committee had not—

after a period of time of 1 month—permitted me to appear before it.

Senator CLARK. May I see the Drummond article?

Senator CASE. Sure.

Senator CLARK. Is not this statement in the Drummond article

entirely false, and I quote:

The Democratic majority of the Senate Rules Committee may have reached

the peak of its noninvestigation when it refused even to allow Senator Clifford

P. Case, of New Jersey, to appear before it to advocate this line of inquiry.

That statement is false, is it not?

Senator CASE. I think it is not false at all. It is in substance true

and I suspect—not suspect; I think it is very clear—that the reason

I am here today is that, needled by this column which stated the facts

in those words, that I had not been permitted for 1 month to appear

before the committee, the committee thought it was about time it

changed its mind and let me appear. I doubt frankly that I would

have been here today if that column had not been written.

Senator CLARK. When were you ever advised, either in writing or

orally, that the committee would not hear you? Never; is that correct?

Senator CASE. This is the kind of thing that you don't—you are not

27-211-64----pt.
1768 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

told no about. You were just not allowed to do, and this is the process

that was in operation when that column was written. For 1 month

I had not gotten permission, which I had asked, to appear before the

committee, and I think that this is clear basis for the statement that

I had not been permitted to appear.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to show that

the Drummond article does contain this obvious untruth. It occurs

to me that the reading into the record of a column by a gentleman for

whom I have a high regard, but who has never been known to be

favorable to the Kennedy or the Johnson administration, adds little to

our search for truth in this investigation. It was I who insisted that

Senator Case be heard in open hearing. I take full responsibility

for that decision. I think it adds little to the deliberations of this

committee to read into the record a column which contains so obvious

an untruth.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to add to that for you—for the benefit

of the public and for this committee and for you, Senator Case—that

at the very first meeting when your request was taken up that you

appear before this committee, it was unanimously agreed that you

should be invited here at an early opportunity, and that is when I

answered your letter in writing, and the second letter which I read,

which I presented for the record, when you asked that this meeting be

changed at your request. We have done everything we know to grant

your request and hear you, and it was moved into open session at your

request and at the request of Senator Clark. But in your first letter

you just asked that you be allowed to come before the committee and

be heard. The letter is in evidence.

Senator CASE. The letter is exactly that. I requested that I be

permitted to be here, and the permission was granted a day or so after

this column appeared, which is 1 month after the letter, first letter,

was written. Mr. Chairman 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to say to you emphatically that Mr. Drummond's article had nothing to do with your being invited to appear

before this committee. It had nothing to do with it. I think every

member of the committee, your colleagues, will tell you the same thing.

Senator CASE. I should not have made a point of this at all except

that the Senator from Pennsylvania seemed to want to discuss these

collateral phases. I may say as far as Mr. Drummond is concerned

one thing, that he is not, in my opinion a partisan. He has supported

the Kennedy administration, the Johnson administration, the Eisenhower administration, administrations before this on a bipartisan

basis, to a degree which makes him suspect in some strict partisan

quarters. I am sure that the Senators know this.

He is2 in my mind, one of the fine newspaper people of this whole

generation and of this era,. and, Mr. Chairman, I must say this, too:

If Republicans are not going to press this matter—and people complain that Republicans press this matter—I suggest what they are

saying is we want the matter pressed because we don't expect the

Democrats ever to press it.

Senator CLARK. It occurs to me, Mr. Chairman, this session might

be profitable for the few remaining moments if we ask the witness to

give us the benefit of his recommendations as to what the committee

should do instead of getting into what I regret has turned into a

partisan discussion.

ii111•1111111•11W
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1769

Senator CASE. I regret this myself very much and it was not my

initiative, I may say.

The CHAIRMAN. If Senator Case would allow me to make this observation: If he would take the several thousand pages of testimony

that we have accumulated on facts in the investigation, and Mr. Drummond would do the same thing, I think he would find these hearings

have been well conducted. The facts as far as we have been able to

find them are written down, published, and underlined. A great deal

of it has been done before the television cameras. To say that this

investigation has been a whitewash or that nothing has been done about

it is absolutely false. His statement, as Senator Clark pointed out, is

absolutely false. You were not refused permission to come before this

committee.

Senator CASE. This I regard as an utter quibble, Mr. Chairman, and

an attempt to throw away the substance and cast doubt upon the substance of what Mr. Drummond has stated here; namely, these facts

as to the relations of Senators. We are not talking about, a thousand

details of irrelevant data that may be in the committee's records. We

are talking about the relations of Members of the Senate, and the

Senate itself, to Bobby Baker, and the reluctance of the committee, the

refusal of the chairman of this committee, to investigate Senators as

in his own words he stated despite the fact that twice at least in my

presence on the Senate floor we were assured that the investigation

would carry this far and it was so intended by the author, Senator

Williams of Delaware. The majority leader, Senator Mansfield, when

Senator Gore of Tennessee, also a Democrat—no partisanship here—

wanted the resolution amended, stated it was not necessary.

Despite this, the investigation of Senators has not occurred, and I

think it should occur, and I think we need the facts as to this matter

because this is the point: We can leave to other authorities and other

agencies the matter of any prosecution for Bobby Baker for wrongdoing. What this committee is supposed to do for the Senate of the

United States is to clear up the relationship of Senators and the Senate

with Bobby Baker and prevent this from recurring.

As is clearly true, the Senate, the Senate's prestige, has been badly

hurt by this episode and is being worse hurt by the reluctance to go

into this particular phase. This is the thing I am talking about, not

whether Bobby Baker made a million dollars or not—although this

needs explanation, too—but whether he made it in connection with the

Members of the Senate, through the use of Senate influence and the

use of his position.

This is the point and this is where the Harris poll, for instance,

makes it very clear that the prestige of the Senate has been hurt by

this. And I, as a Member of the Senate, am deeply concerned by it,

and if it is made to appear I am doing this because of partisan reasons,

this is completely false, because as I said before in answer to the insinuation that was made—not by me—I didn't get into this; it was

started by members of the committee—if you make this charge, then

I think you are subject to the question, Don't you want this matter

investigated? and I hope the committee would change its mind about

this.

• Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like

to ask the witness in the very few minutes which remain to tell us
1770 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

exactly what he thinks we ought to do because, as I understand that,

that is the sole purpose for which the Senator comes before the

committee.

Senator CASE. I thank the Senator for permitting me to get to that

point.

Senator COOPER. Mr. Chairman, may I just interrupt here a moment ?

The CHAIRMAN. You may.

Senator COOPER. I think I should say that Senator Curtis, the ranking Republican member, is not here. At the first meeting we held

after Senator Case had made his request, which was about a month

ago, the full committee did vote. I was one who voted that he be

heard. We did vote that he be heard.

Senator CLARK. That Senator Case be heard.

Senator COOPER. That Senator Case be heard. The question of

whether or not he should be heard in public arose only this morning,

and we voted—I, Senator Scott, and Senator Curtis, whose proxy I

held—expressing our view that he should be heard in public.

Senator Scow. If the Senator will yield, there was an interval of

time when the Senator's, Senator Case's request and the time when the

committee met, and as I understand Senator Case is speaking about the

interval of time. But in view of the very limited time we have, I

would respectfully suggest that Senator Case be given an opportunity

to make his recommendations, to 'complete his statement, and I would

like the record to show that I am sympathetic to his travail because

every witness who has appeared before this committee and sought the

truth has immediately been put on trial himself, and I suggest that

Senator Case be allowed to go ahead.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman—

Senator CLARK. I resent that statement, and I want the record to

show my resentment.

Senator CASE. May I say I appreciate the opportunity, the chance

to go ahead. I do not feel in any sense on trial. I don't feel I can be

tried for anything I have done. I am interested in having the Senate

clear its good name, and I don't think we will be able to do it unless

we make some changes here. The suggestion has been made that everything is in the record about what happened, in the record about Bobby

Baker. I suggest there is nothing in the record about Bobby Baker's

relation to the Senators, and this is my point and, therefore, my suggestion is this:

Bobby. Baker won't tell and he asserts constitutional immunities

from answering the committee's questions or from giving his papers

to the committee on these points. Very well, then, ask every Member

of the Senate these two questions: "Mr. Senator, have you had any

business or financial dealings with Bobby Baker, directly or indirectly ?"

We can find out that way, Mr. Chairman. Secondly, to ask each

Member of the Senate: "Mr. Senator, did Bobby Baker ever give you

or get for you or offer to give you or get for you any campaign contributions, any help in making up Campaign deficits by gifts, purchase

of tickets, or otherwise, any retainer or employment?. Did he ever

give you any preferment in committee assignment or anything else of

value?"
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1771

This is the whole proposal that I make, Mr. Chairman. I do not

assume greater knowledge than members of this committee. I do not

suggest that this is the only way these answers can be gotten. I do say,

Mr. Chairman, that this is one way they can be gotten, and I do say that if the effort to get at this matter—the relations of Members of the Senate with Bobby Baker—is not pursued by this committee this committee will have fallen down on its job grievously for the Senate of the United States. I thank the chairman.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask counsel to give us his opinion, if he is prepared to give it, as to whether the second question which Senator Case has requested be asked of all Senators is relevant

to the inquiry, pertinent, or indeed permitted, by the resolution au- thorizing this investigation? 

Mr. MCLENDON. It is my opinion and the opinion of the legislative

counsel's office that the second question is not included within the scope

of this resolution.

• Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I point out the question of cam- paign expenditures is particularly within the jurisdiction of a sub- committee of this committee chaired by Senator Cannon. I agree with counsel's opinion. I do not think that this committee investi- gating under the terms of Resolution 212 and its successor has any authority to get into the matter of campaign contributions.

Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on that? Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with counsel's opinion because counsel's opinion

has already been overruled and the guiding light, the guiding prin- ciple, of this committee has been established by the Senate majority leader, Senator Mansfield; by the author of the resolution, Senator Williams; by others, including Senator Gore of Tennessee; all of whom have brought out on the Senate floor that this committee does

have the right to go widely into all of these matters mentioned by Senator Case, and that the words "other improprieties" refer exactly

to their meaning, namely, that any improprieties involving Bobby Baker or any employee of the Senate, and that the improprieties, if

any, of Senators themselves are included in this resolution, and we are bound by the statements of the majority leader and by the author

of the resolution, and we are not bound by the opinion of counsel.

Senator CLARK. The Senator is entirely incorrect.

Senator Scow. I am entirely correct, and I stand on it.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, may I make a request in regard to

these? I am not sure how long the committee will continue to sit.

May I ask the permission of the committee to include my statement

and the article to which I have referred and the supporting data in

the record?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you may; you mean what you have with you

there?

Senator CASE. Yes; that is right.

The CHAIRMAN. They will be included as part of the record.

(The statement and article referred to follow:)

STATEMENT BY SENATOR CLIFFORD P. CASE, REPUBLICAN, OF NEW JERSEY

I asked for this hearing so that I might directly tell the members of the committee, face to face, how strongly I feel about the committee's responsibility as

an agency of the Senate to get to the bottom of what to me is a sordid affront-to

the dignity of the great institution in which we serve. •
1772 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

When I hear of an employee of the Senate boasting that he has 10 Members of

this body in the palm of his hand, I do a slow burn. It is difficult for me to contain my anger when I hear the talk, which everyone has heard, of Bobby Baker's

dealings in committee assignments—granting or withholding his favor to persons

elected by sovereign States to the greatest deliberative body in the world; of

Bobby Baker's offering $5,000 to Senators or senatorial candidates for campaign

purposes, and attaching strings to these offers in the form of commitments to

vote for or against oil depletion allowances or amendment of rule 22, the filibuster

rule, for example.

As I ponder these things, it is hard for me to understand how the Senate itself

can contain its wrath at conduct of this sort.

If anything short of the direct sale of Senators' votes could constitute desecration of the institution of the U.S. Senate or foul the pure stream of democracy in

our country, surely it is such conduct as has been reported in the Bobby Baker

case.

It is hard to believe that the committee could consider for a moment dropping

the investigation until it is satisfied it has ever; fact uncovered from the beginning of Bobby Baker's connection with the Senate until he left it with a fortune

of $2 million.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, I must say, frankly, that the impression that I have gotten,

and I think the public has gotten, has been of an effort to put an end to an unpleasant episode—to close the door—to push the whole matter aside in the hope

that it will soon be forgotten. I do not say this is the intention of the committee.

I do say this is the impression the committee has given thus far. The press of

the country has almost uniformly reflected this view.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest it is intolerable that we leave the matter in this sorry

state. If Bobby Baker cannot be directly questioned, cannot be compelled to

produce his records, are there not other ways in which the facts can be gathered?

As I have suggested, why should not the committee ask each Member of the

Senate:

1. Did you ever have any business or financial dealings with Bobby Baker,

directly or indirectly? If so, what were they?

2. Did Bobby Baker ever give you, get for you, offer you, or offer to get for you

any campaign contributions; any help in making up campaign deficits by gifts,

purchase of tickets, or otherwise; any retainer or employment; any preferment

in committee assignment or otherwise; anything of value?

This may be novel. Perhaps this has hever been done before, but does that

mean it should not be done now? What is wrong with it? If other persons can

be called to give information on the Bobby Baker episode, why not Members

of the Senate? Why should Senators be treated as a privileged class? Should

the preservation of the privacy of Senators outrank the preservation of the integrity of the Senate as an institution?

• Has the committee some other way to get the necessary information? If not,

it seems to me the committee has no alternative but to follow my suggestion, no

matter how distasteful this may be to all of us. We must exhaust all possible

sources if we are really to get to the root of the reports about Bobby Baker's

activities.

I do not know how far the committee has gone but it has not been reassuring

to be told that the committee is not investigating Senators. The whole point of

the committee's inquiry is that Bobby Baker has involved Members of the

Senate and the Senate itself. No investigation of Bobby Baker can have any

real meaning without an investigation of the relations of Members of the Senate

with Bobby Baker. The Senate's concern is with the Senate—its reputation and

good name and that of its Members.

It is shocking to all of us, I am sure, that a recent public opinion survey indicated that 50 percent of those polled feel that Members of Congress represent

special interests and that only 30 percent feel that Members of Congress represent the public interest. The surveyor, Louis Harris, said the poll "confirmed

rather longstanding cynicism about the Nation's top legislators." Mr. Harris

reported that "one in five voters felt the Baker case cast no credit on the Senate.

The generally expressed feeling was that the atmosphere of the Nation's highest

legislative body should have been kept more clear of such business deals. The

dignity of the Senate has been sullied to some degree."

Every Member of the Senate has had his reputation, his good name diminished

by the Bobby Baker case. As an individual, I resent Bobby Baker's ability to

blacken me. As a Member of the Senate, I resent his ability to blacken the
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1773

Senate, and as a citizen I feel it intolerable that Bobby Baker should pervert this public instrument to his selfish purposes.

Whether or not the committee sees fit to adopt any specific suggestion about asking these questions of all Members of the Senate, I do emphasize that, as the

arm of the Senate in this matter, the committee cannot avoid the responsibility

to get the information. This is the committee's chief job in this investigation.

Your chairman has indicated that your committee's immediate interest is with its investigation of the Bobby Baker case and that you will be considering

possible legislative recommendations later. When the committee does take

these up, I hope that I may be given an opportunity to discuss the proposal which I, and several of my colleagues, including Senator Clark of your committee, have been sponsoring for a disclosure bill, for I believe that disclosure is

the best approach to avoiding conflicts of interest.

(From the Washington Post, May 4, 1964]

No PROGRESS—THE BAKER NONINVESTIGATION

(By Roscoe Drummond)

The Democratic majority of the Senate noninvestigating committee is show- ing positive genius in finding ways to prevent itself from getting the evidence in

the Bobby Baker case.

I don't mean that the Senate Rules Committee has been idle in its noninvestigation. It hasn't. It has worked arduous hours thinking up ways not to do

its work.

It has been quick and alert. When its principal potential witness—Bobby

Baker himself—closed one door in its face, the Democratic majority of the com- mittee knew exactly what to do. At its own initiative it closed all the other

doors of profitable inquiry and went right back to its work of not getting the facts.

Most Washington correspondents are convinced that the committee closed

down its noninvestjgation "just in the nick of time," that is, before it found anything embarrassing to anybody in the Halls of Congress.

The theory must be that Baker, who used his position as secretary of the Senate Democrats to accomplish we know not what, operated with a dead tele- phone in an empty office.

And if he didn't, the Senate Rules Committee is apparently determined not to find out.

When he was first solicited for testimony, Bobby Baker let it be known that he was very busy "writing a book." Some hands in the Senate went to fur- rowed brows. "Is Bobby writing about me?" they worried.

And then when he was finally subpenaed, he took the fifth amendment when he was asked to give his name.

Whereupon the Democratic majority of the noninvestigating committee were unanimously confident that there were no other ways of finding out to whom, for whom, and with whom he had been doing things in the Senate for so many

years.

Obviously what the people want to know, need to know, and have the right to know is how Baker was able to manipulate government in the interests of him- self and his friends. To what extent and in what ways had individual Senators

and the Senate as a whole been involved as pawns, partners, or otherwise in the Baker operations?

These are good questions. And there are others. Surely such questions as

these should be addressed to the 100 U.S. Senators:

What, if any, business or financial dealings did you have with Bobby

Baker?

Did Bobby Baker ever give you, get for you, offer you, or offer to get for

you any campaign contributions—and with conditions attached? (One

Senator, Frank E. Moss, of Utah, disclosed that he received an offer of campaign funds from Baker and rejected the money because it was made conditional upon his support of the oil-depletion allowance.)

. Did Baker offer any other U.S. Senators help to make up campaign defi- cits through gifts, purchase of tickets or otherwise, any retainer or em- ployment, any preferment in committee assignment, anything of value?
1774 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

Bobby Baker can, of course, use the fifth amendment to refuse to tell the

Rules Committee about his dealings with Senators, but can 100 U.S. Senators

take the fifth amendment if they are asked the same questions?

The Democratic majority of the Senate Rules Committee may have reached

the peak of its noninvestigation when it refused even to allow Senator Clifford P.

Case, of New Jersey, to appear before it to advocate this line of inquiry.

It is true that no Senate committee has the power to subpena a U.S. Senator,

but Senators can be asked the questions in one way or another.

It is true that they can't be compelled to answer. But even their nonanswers

would be revealing.

Senator CASE. I thank the chairman. If I may just say in conclusion—and I will stay as long, naturally, as the committee will hear

me—I just want to say, on the point that the Senator has made, it may

be irregular for a witness, but I am a Member of this body. If there

are any deficiencies in the resolution of authorization, I don't think

that this committee ought to stop; I think it ought to get full authority,

if it feels it has any lack in its authority, to get to the bottom of this

matter because we are not doing a dance here. We are trying to do

the kind of job that the Members of the Senate owe to the institution

to find out all the facts about this Bobby Baker mess as far as it relates

to the Senate. I am not trying to smear anybody. I am not interested

in doing a thing except clearing the good name of the Senate.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, it occurs to me that if Senator Scott

and Senator Case want to differ with the opinion of the counsel of this

committee, and indeed the legislative counsel of the Senate, with respect to an investigation of campaign expenditures not being covered

under the terms of Senate Resolution 212, they have an easy remedy.

They can propose such a resolution on the floor of the Senate, and then

let the Senate consider—and Senator Williams and the majority leader

and everybody else—whether we want to ignore the established procedures which set up a special subcommittee to deal with campaign expenditures and throw that whole question into this investigation at

the 23d hour just as we are preparing to prepare our report. I for one

would never support such a resolution, and I don't think the majority

of the Senate would, either.

Senator SCOTT. Would my senior colleague from Pennsylvania

yield? I am of the impression that one thing mentioned by Senator

Case—and that is whether Bobby Baker offered any preferment in

committee assignments or otherwise—has been publicly stated by some

Members of the Senate, and I thought that the Senator, senior Senator,

from Pennsylvania had concurred in that. I know that other Senators

spoke up and said Bobby Baker interfered with their securing choice

assignments to committees here; that they resented it very much; and

they were very much in opposition to his interference with their proceeding by the normal process of seniority to secure preferential committee assignments. And wasn't the senior Senator one of those

Senators?

Senator CLARK. Will the Senator yield?

Senator SCOTT. Yes.

Senator CLARK. My point is that the whole question involved in

Senator Case's point No. 2 has nothing to do with this inquiry. I have

already stated publicly what Bobby Baker did in connection with my

committee assignments, with the committee assignments of other Senators. In illy judgment, that has nothing whatever to do with this
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1775

investigation. It was a deplorable thing he did. It is not within the

scope of this resolution.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say one thing.

Senator COOPER. I think he has raised two issues here. One concerns the question of whether the committee has done all it could to

secure evidence. I would like to say, and have it put in the record

again, that Senator Scott, Senator Curtis, and I recommended that

some 30 additional witnesses be heard. The committee voted upon

this matter and the vote, although we supported it, was against calling

these witnesses. The second question relates to whether Members of

the Senate as well as employees are within the terms of the resolution.

It is correct that Senator Williams and Senator Mansfield upon the

floor of the Senate stated that Members of the Senate were so included

within the framework of this resolution. I said so on the floor of

the Senate that same day that I believed they were. I would hope

that Senator Case, if he has information about the involvements of

any Senators, would make that evidence known to us.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, of course, I would make any specific

evidence or information known to the Senate of the United States or

its properly constituted agency. I would never withhold anything of

this sort, and I have none of the evidence of the kind, I think, that

was referred to here. But I cannot ignore the constantly repeated

statements of the kind of things that I stated in my original—in my

statement in chief here: Of Bobby Baker boasting he had 10 Members

of the Senate in the palm of his hand; of his ability to deal :in committee assignments, to grant or withhold favors to Members of the

Senate, offering campaign contributions. It isn't the fact they are

campaign contributions; it is the fact he is offering them for people

who have special interests, Members of the Senate being bought, attempted to be bought, by Bobby Baker.

This is the kind of thing, and if this is not within the purview of

this committee's assignment, then I can't understand English, and

even if it isn't, it should be and, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, if

half of my proposal, if the second part of my questionnaire, little

questionnaire, is not relevant to the purposes of this committee, why

not the first part? You can't throw out the baby with the bath water.

This is no answer, if the committee feels that some of this is not good.

There has been not one bit of evidence, I believe, and I have had this

studied carefully, in the whole committee's hearings on these points of

the Senators' relation with Bobby Baker. This is the point. It isn't

the question of whether Bobby Baker made all this money, although

that is evidence that something funny was going on, it seems to me,

at least something requiring investigation, but whether Bobby Baker

made this money himself, properly or improperly.

This committee and the dignity of the Senate are concerned with

the institution of the Senate, and whether an individual in the position

of Bobby Baker was able to manipulate the Senate of the United

States. This suggestion that it is possible has aroused in me such

wrath that I will not be stopped. I will not be silent until I have

done everything I can to stimulate the activity necessary to get the

facts. All we have to do, all the committee has to do, is ask the Members of the Senate these questions.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on that?

2,7-211-64—vt. 20-3
1776 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

The CHAIRMAN. You certainly may.

Senator CLARK. In the first place, I think this open hearing clearly

demonstrates that nobody is trying to prevent the senior Senator

from New Jersey in saying anything that comes into his head with

reference to this investigation. There certainly has been no effort to

gag anybody at this hearing this morning. In the second place, may

I say that I think it is very pertinent to determine whether Senators

had business or financial dealings with Bobby Baker directly or indirectly. I had none.

Senator CASE. Nor did I.

Senator CLARK. I ask the Senator whether he thinks this committee has the authority to require Senators to give that information to

the committee if they are not willing to do so voluntarily?

Senator CASE. I suggest that question is not relevant. It isn't a

matter of requiring. You don't have to give subpenas to the Senators

and compel them to answer and then bring them to the bar of the

Senate if they don't. I am saying: Make a simple request just so

the information can be there. I can't imagine any Senator who had

any information not being anxious to have a place where that information could be registered. If there are Senators who have had dealings, let them explain what they are. I think the presumption put

upon all Members of the Senate to clear their names, and the good

name of the Senate, does impose this obligation on the committee and

upon all Members.

Senator CLARK. The Senator is an excellent lawyer who made a fine

reputation at the bar before he came to the Senate. I press my question upon him because it seems to me important in determining whether the Senator's first request should be granted or not: Does the Senator think that this committee has the authority to require Senators

to respond to that question ?

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, my good friend is so disarming when

he suggests that I have even the ability any longer to answer questions of a legal nature. I don't purport to be the committee's lawyer

or to advise it in these matters. I do not think the question is important and I don't know the answer to it. But I do know that the

committee doesn't have to have legal authority to compel answers as

a condition to its asking these questions and giving Members of the

Senate a chance to answer them.

Senator CLARK. Well, the Senator may, and I hate to use the

word, but it does seem to me it is justified, the Senator may evade my

question if he wants to, but I suggest there is hardly a Senator in the

Chamber that doesn't know we do not have that power. Maybe we

should have it. I am not saying we shouldn't have it.

Senator CASE. Let's assume the committee has no power whatever;

this is still no answer to the question.

Senator CLARK. I didn't say it had no power whatever. I say it

doesn't have the power to compel by subpena, and I don't think the

Senator from New Jersey thinks it does, either.

Senator CASE. I simply don't know the answer to this and I don't

regard it as important. I don't think it is an answer to my suggestion

that the committee ask for this information on a voluntary basis to

say, "We haven't the power to compel the answers." This, I think,

is not evasion, my dear Senator, and not any refusal of mine to answer
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1777

a legal question which I don't know the answer to and which I don't

regard as relevant.

Senator CLARK. I didn't say it was. The purpose of my inquiry

is because I believe this committee should recommend a resolution

giving authority to committees of the Senate to require Senators to

testify under subpena and under oath, but I say very strongly in my

opinion the Senate hasn't got that authority right now.

Senator CASE. If I may just respond to this, I would support the

Senator all the way. But I think he is off on a collateral matter and

that this is possibly a diversionary tactic on the part of the most

astute member of the Pennsylvania bar, and you know a Philadelphia

lawyer can give cards and spades to a New York lawyer at any time.

Senator CLARK. I have given no indication of my attitude with respect to the Senator's first question. The Senator is putting words in

my mouth when I think he indicates that I don't agree with him.

Perhaps I do.

Senator Scow. Mr. Chairman, we have not lost sight of the fact

that counsel has indicated that there is no legal objection to complying

with the first request of Senator Case which lie has said.

Senator CLARK. Of course, he hasn't indicated any such thing.

Senator Scow. Counsel has said as to the second question he and

the office of legislative counsel feel it is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of this committee.

Senator CLARK. He has made no statement about the first question.

Senator Scow. But he certainly left me under the impression—I

am a Philadelphia lawyer, too.

Senator CLARK. A Virginia lawyer, really.

Senator Scorr. I am a Philadelphia lawyer, and he left me under

the strong impression that by referring only to the second question

he had not any reason to object as a lawyer to the first, and even if he

did object as a lawyer, I don't think this legal opinion is worth a tinker's damn in the Senate of the United States where Senators have the

right at all times to investigate the conduct of other Senators.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I think I recognize television conduct when I see it.

Senator SCOTT. This is with all due respect to counsel, but lawyers

talk this way to each other.

Senator CLARK. I think I recognize television conduct when I see it.

Senator Scow. I have seen the senior Senator from Pennsylvania

give an excellent example of it.

Senator CLARK. It occurs to me we have now served every useful

purpose which could be taken in indulging the Senator from New

Jersey this morning. I believe the Senate is now in session and I

suggest we have no further right to sit.

Senator CASE. May I suggest one little comment on this? Senator,

you and I have answered the questions I have asked here; that is two

out of a hundred; let's keep going.

Senator Scow. Count me in. I have never in my life had any

more than 3 minutes' conversation with Bobby Baker, all of it on the

Senate floor and nothing involving any conflict of interest or other

imvroprieties.

senator CASE. This is all I am after: giving Members of the Senate

the chance to answer this question in some way that is evidence, as the

result of a formal effort to find the facts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1778 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to make a very brief statement which

I think the committee will agree is accurate. In the first place, we

have had no Senators come before this committee wanting to testify

on anything regarding what you have said there. We have not refused to hear any Senator. In all of the hearings we have had and

all of the witnesses we have heard—and we have heard some right potent witnesses one of them has just been convicted, is awaiting sentence, and probably will go to jail 

Senator Scow. We would probably have found more if you kept

this investigation going.

The CHAIRMAN. Not a single one of them has referred to a business

transaction between a Senator and Bobby Baker. No Member of

the Senate has been referred to as having any business dealings with

Bobby Baker, other than that Senator Smathers sold Bobby Baker a,

little piece of land about 7 years ago. That is completely on the record, and no Senator has refused to answer any questions we have

asked them. I want to say this to the distinguished Senator: If he

has any information to bring against any Senator, if he will present it

before this committee, making his charges, and bring the Senator in,

we will investigate it.

Senator CASE. Mr. Chairman, I do not regard the committee's function as complete when it sits and listens to people who come in and

talk to it. I regard this committee's sacred duty as one of going and

getting the facts, not sitting and hoping they will come to it. I don't

think that the committee is going to finish its job in the face of Bobby

Baker's boasting he had 10 Senators in the palm of his hand, of his

granting and withholding committee assignments as a favor. This

young man, 35 years old, dealing with Senators as if they were pieces

or pawns in his hands. This is intolerable, and if the committee can't

arouse the passion that I think ought to be aroused in this matter, then

I do believe it is not doing its duty.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I ask that our counsel be permitted

to make a statement.

Senator COOPER. Mr. Chairman, may I say one thing and I will—

Mr. MCLENDON. May I make a simple statement?

Senator COOPER. Just 1 second. May I say again that 3 of us on this

side voted to secure 30 more witnesses which we were not able to secure.

Senator CLARK. Fourteen, John, not thirty.

Senator COOPER. Thirty.

Senator CLARK. Fourteen were voted on.

Senator COOPER. So far as Members of the Senate are concerned,

the question of whether or not a Member is subject to a subpena seems

to me irrelevant. I should think that if any Senator wants to come

in here and say whether or not he has had any dealings with Baker,

the doors ought to be open to him to come in, and I would favor that.

As to whether or not the committee can subpena a Member, I don't

know. It seems to me legalistic.

The CHAIRMAN. I thoroughly agree with the Senator. He knows as

well as I know there has been no Senator who asked to come before

this committee except Senator Case; is that correct? To your knowledge, do you know of any Senator who has asked to be heard here?

Senator COOPER. No.

Senator CLARK. We heard Senator Williams.

•
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1779

The CHAIRMAN. We heard Senator Williams.

Senator COOPER. It ought to be open to them.

The CHAIRMAN. The door is open. I will say that any Member of

the Senate can come in here and be heard and can say anything he

wants to. We will be glad to hear him.

• Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Chairman, may I make a very brief statement

on the record in view of the fact that my motives have been impugned?

As general counsel, I am neither a Philadelphia lawyer nor a New

York lawyer, but I am a lawyer.

Senator CASE. Both the Philadelphia and New York bars are the

worse for that.

Mr. MCLENDON. But I am a lawyer who respects the law. That is

all I have to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any further business to come before the

committee? I think our time is up. There is a live quorum on and

the Rules Committee must now adjourn subject to the call of the

Chair.

Thank you, Senator Case. We appreciate your being with us. The

other editorials and articles you wish to submit for the record will be

inserted at the conclusion of the hearing.

Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I hope to keep in touch

with the committee.

( Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the committee adjourned subject to call

of the Chair.)

(The articles and editorials submitted for the record by Senator

Clifford P. Case are as follows:)

[Prom the Newark (N.J.) Evening News, Mar. 21, 1964]

IT WON'T Go AWAY

All the sophistry that supports political expediency cannot conceal Democratic

anxiety to bury the Bobby Baker investigation. The anxiety is understandable, but a premature funeral would scarcely restore public confidence badly

shaken by the disclosures to date.

Chairman Jordan of the Senate Rules Committee says the investigation has

been completed. In ascertaining that there was in fact "highly improper" and

"indefensible" conduct by a Senate employee, the committee has ended the first

part of its task. Now the committee, he continues, should proceed to the second

part of its assignment, which is to recommend rules governing outside business

activities of Senate employees.

From the beginning, Chairman Jordan has maintained that the outside business activities of those who are not Senate employees, meaning especially Senators, was none of the committee's concern. "We are not investigating Senators,"

he said at the outset.

Republican members challenge the claim that the committee's work is done.

They demand that 16 more witnesses, said to have relevant information to give,

should be heard. They doubt all the testimony would be repetitive, as committee counsel maintains, but want to hear it anyway.

The committee will meet Monday to decide whether to take more testimony.

Latest reports indicate a possibility some of the witnesses on the Republican

list may be called. Perhaps the Democrats are giving some thought to the

warning of Senator Scott, Republican, of Pennsylvania.

"The American people believe there is a massive coverup going on here in

Washington," said Senator Scott. "And they are right."

Republican charges that the Democrats are attempting a "political whitewash"

may be unfair, but a suspension of hearings at this stage could only strengthen

the suspicion the Republicans may be right.

The Democratic assumption seems th be that the only person guilty of misconduct was Mr. Baker. Many besides Republican politicians would like clearer

proof that in cashing in so handsomely on his Democratic majority secretaryship, Mr. Baker was the sole beneficiary.
1780 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

[From the Elizabeth (N.J.) Daily Journal, Mar. 23, 1964]

BAKER CASE SHOULDN'T Go UNDER RUG

Citizens wearied of the Bobby Baker episode would like to side with the

Senate Democrats and let it be swept under the rug, except they know it does

not belong there.

Charges of a "massive coverup" have been made on the Senate floor by Senator

Scott, one of the three Republican members of the nine-man Rules Committee

which has been conducting the inquiry. He sees the Baker affair casting "a

shadow on the integrity of the Senate." There are many who will agree with

this observation.

To stop the Senate hearings now would be to impugn the American intelligence. The insinuations and open charges of influence peddling, unethical if not

technically unlawful deals, forgeries, and fast-buck practices cast suspicion

in too many directions. A course of action can evolve only from all the facts;

the public does not have them and apparently the Senators are not fully

enlightened.

The hearing record to date contains reasons for new rules and new laws,

for criminal inquiry and possibly prosecution, and veiled smears on names

which should be stainless. It would seem that even the Democrats, most embarrassed at the moment, would want to clear their own.

The public is too tolerant of misfeasance in public office, but the Baker saga

cannot be regarded with nonchalance. The investigation should not be permitted to deteriorate into another travesty.

[From the New York Times, Mar. 25, 1964]

THE RELUCTANT DRAGONS

When Robert G. Baker pleaded the fifth amendment (plus the first, fourth,

and sixth) before the Senate committee looking into his wheeling and dealing,

nobody was much surprised. As secretary of the Senate Democratic majority,

his path had crossed many lives high in Government, his fortune had been made,

and silence was the better part of wisdom.

Now another silence hangs as a pall over the U.S. Senate. It is the attempt of

the committee majority to bury the case, quietly and with few mourners. Much

remains to be told about Baker's business empire and how it grew. But Democrats have outvoted Republicans on the committee in an effort to close down

the investigation; the bipartisan nature of the inquiry has ended.

In effect, this means that it is the Senate itself which is "taking the fifth" on

the Baker case. The reluctant dragons on the committee have become timid

about investigating one of their own former employees. Thus, they have placed

themselves on trial, too.

The facts are still not in; many pieces and persons are missing in the Baker

financial jigsaw puzzle. What real estate deals were made, what favorable tax

rulings were secured, what rebates were received, what gifts were made to and

from Baker— for himself and political friends? The basic question remains: To

what extent were the U.S. Senate and other Government agencies used illegally

for self-enrichment?

The most legitimate of legislative purposes can be served if this investigation

is pursued. It can lead not simply to exposure of its central figure but to new

regulations governing conflict of interest. The Baker case remains very much

alive in the public mind, no matter what the committee says. Its exploration

must go on.

[From the Newark (N.J.) Evening News, Apr. 1, 19641

POLITICS FOR PROFIT

Ever since Bobby Baker made himself inaccessible by means of the first,

fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments, the Senate Rules Committee has displayed

singular lack of diligence in ferreting facts, pursuing leads, or otherwise getting

answers to questions affecting the public interest
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1781

Now New Jersey's Senator Case has come to the committee's assistance. Also

the public's. Mr. Case suggested 100 ways of getting at the facts—simply by

asking each Senator a few pertinent questions. Such as:

Did you ever have any business or financial dealings with Bobby Baker,

directly or indirectly? If so, what are they?

Did Bobby Baker ever give you, get for you, offer you, or offer to get for

you am. y campaign contributions?

Or any help in making up campaign deficits by gifts, purchase of tickets,

or otherwise?

Or any retainer or employment or any preferment in committee assignment or otherwise; anything of Value?

Of course, not all Senators will consider this sort of questioning cricket. In

fact, Chairman Jordan insists his committee is not investigating Senators.

But is it naive to believe that a public office is a public trust? Or to hold that

one standard of ethics should apply to all public servants, whether elected or

hired?

Apparently so. At least it will seem that way as long as Members of the

U.S. Senate cooperate in closing what passes for an investigation while all the

pertinent questions raised by Senator Case and others remain unanswered.

The Senate's business is the public's business. The people have every right to

know whether Members were used as "pawns, partners and otherwise" in Mr.

Baker's scheme of self-enrichment.

To stop this investigation of politics for profit at this critical point is to hang

a cloud of suspicion over the entire Senate.

[From the Daily Journal. Apr. 1, 1964. Elizabeth, N.J.]

CASE INSISTS ON BAKER EXPORA

New Jersey's Senator Case believes the Senate has failed in the Bobby Baker

scandal. In declaring that more information pertinent to the clandestine relationships between the former majority secretary and various Senators is available and should be exposed; he reflects the views of many of his constituents.

Citizens across the land also concur.

Senator Case reminds the upper House that Mr. Baker's seclusion behind the

fifth amendment does not preclude interrogation of Senators—the Rules Coramittee possesses that authority.

The tactic the New Jersey Senator proposes is simple. He would have the

Rules Committee ask a few questions of each Senator pertaining to business or

financial dealings, contributions, favors, jobs, patronage, in short "anything of

value."

Senators who have not been participating in Baker's schemes should be willing

to place themselves on the record; others might be more embarrassed by silence

than by telling the truth. It is inconceivable any Member of the Senate would

resort to the fifth amendment.

With these answers at hand the committee 'could undertake two functions incumbent upon it—

Expose any reason for criminal prosecution and find the basis for corrective

legislation, or at least new senatorial rules, to thwart any repetition of this

scene.

Tell the public the truth, thus dissipating baseless rumors and establishing

hard facts on which the people could make their own judgments, come election

day.

Throughout this whole episode Senator Case has been highly critical of the

cynicism, the disregard of the integrity the public expects of its officials. In

this latest demand that all the duplicity be exposed he is speaking out again in

the interest of all the people.

[Prom the Philadelphia Bulletin, Apr. 1. 1964].

SENATOR CASE VS. "FRIENDS"

The very exclusive "One Hundred Club," sometimes called the U.S. Senate,

has been irritated more than once by the refusal of certain Members to follow

the club rules.
1782 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

• Currently, the irritant is Clifford P. Case, of New Jersey. Mr. Case is a Republican, but as a very liberal Republican, he is often a source of annoyance

to his own party. He is even more of an annoyance to the whole Senate club

when he makes such suggestions as he did yesterday.

These were to the quite obvious effect that the Senate Rules Committee's long

• investigation of Bobby Baker had produced more questions than answers.

Almost every American would have to agree with this thesis. Baker was secretary of the majority (Democratic) caucus under Lyndon B. Johnson, and

later was a powerful Washington figure. He now seems clearly to have used

his power for the enrichment of himself and his friends.

This is bad enough. But it was left to Senator Case to point out the obvious—

that the "One Hundred Club" should take steps to clear its image. Mr. Case

proposes, therefore, that all 100 U.S. Senators should be invited to come forward to disclose what dealings, if any, they had with the puissant Mr. Baker.

Otherwise, says Senator Case, the public will be likely to assume that the

"double standard" of ethics—one set for Senate employees and another for Senators—prevails.

Senator Case will be quite unpopular among his peers for this proposal.

But to the American public, he will seem entirely right. Quite a few will say.

"Go it, Senator * * * let the chips fall where they may."

[From the Record, Hackensack, N.J., Apr. 2, 1964]

Is THAT THE SMELL OF DEATH?

On his indomitable refusal to be cynical with respect to the ethics and morals

of the Members of the U.S. Senate, Senator Case, Republican, of New Jersey,

is to be congratulated and envied. Mr. Case dares still to insist the people want

to know and have a right to know whether Bobby Baker was able to manipulate

the Government of the United States. He dares to insist, on the floor of the

Senate and in the presence of his astounded colleagues, that the public has a

right to know whether and to what extent Mr. Baker involved the Senate and

the Senators as pawns or partners in his squalid and profitable adventures.

•Mr. Case dares to believe the truth might be brought to light, despite the reticence of Bobby Baker and the somewhat frantic delicacy of the investigating

committee, if the Rules Committee would put these questions to each Member of

the Senate:

1. Did you ever have any business or financial dealings with Bobby Baker,

directly or indirectly? If so, what were they?

2. Did Bobby Baker ever give you, get for you, offer you, or offer to get for you:

any compaign contributions, any help in making up campaign deficits by gifts,

purchase of tickets, or otherwise; any retainer or employment; any preferment

in committee assignment or otherwise; anything of value?

The Rules Committee will not ask these questions. The Members will not

volunteer to answer unless asked. The Baker investigation is closed; the chairman has announced it has found a pattern of activity which cannot be tolerated—you are left to guess what the pattern of activity was, and your clue might

be another Senator's pious observation that no good can come of further exposure

of the stink. It is the Senator's word.

Some reforms are indicated. One would be the adoption of legislation sponsored by Mr. Case and Senators Neuberger, Democrat, of Oregon, Hart, Democrat, of Michigan, and Clark, Democrat, of Pennsylvania, requiring every Member of Congress to file an annual disclosure of his personal financial interests.

Another would be legislation affording candidates for office tax-paid support of

their campaign effort or at least encouraging through tax exemptions broad public support enabling candidates to steer clear of Bobby Baker in politics, business, and labor. There is no substantive reason whatever to suppose the

Congress will adopt such reforms. There is ample reason to fear for the future

of representative government once suspicion is established not only in people

as a whole but within the citadel itself that it Is a predatory racket, a stink

about which the less we know, the better. The U.S. Senate is well on its way

toward establishing that prima facie case. The senior New Jersey Senator is

to be congratulated on his noncomformity and his faith.
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1783

[From the Asbury Park (N.J.) Evening Press, Apr. 2, 19641,

WE ARE PROUD OF SENATOR CASE

New Jersey has good reason to be proud of Clifford Case, its senior U.S. Senator. He has confronted the issue posed by the Bobby Baker scandal forthrightly

and demanded that something be done about it. We wish the other men who

hold the exalted title of "Senator" possessed Senator Case's sense of scruple.

A bill was introduced in the last session of Congress to compel lawmakers to

disclose their outside interests and their association with lobbyists. Since its

introduction the bill has languished in the Rules Committee. Senator Case

rightly demands that the committee release the bill and permit the Members of

the Senate to stand up and be counted. His advice is good.

The Bobby Baker case has developed into one of the most sensational scandals

to come out of Washington in years. It has cast a shadow on the Senate of the

United States where the freewheeling Mr. Baker operated as secretary to the

Democratic majority. Many Senators have been linked with the unsavory Mr.

Baker and President Johnson's name has been drawn into the mess since, when

he was the majority leader, he regarded Mr. Baker as a protege. The White House

has not enhanced the President's reputation by acquiescing in the discontinuance of the Baker hearings or by seeking to discredit witnesses against Bobby.

Senator Case demands that the Senate give thought to its reputation. It is

hardly to be expected that the people of the United States can have much regard

for the integrity of a public body that stifles inquiry as soon as the trail of evidence leads to its own door. In the interest of its self-respect the Senate should

continue the Bobby Baker hearings until the whole sordid story is unfolded.

The Democratic majority rightly insisted that the mess concerning Sherman

Adams, vicuna coats, and oriental rugs be spread out for the public to read. But

It is wrong when it seeks to suppress the more odorous Bobby Baker case. Senator Case demands action. He has taken a stand for decency in Government.

President Johnson and the Democratic majority will be ill advised if they do less.

[From the New York Daily News, Apr. 2, 1964]

Two QUERIES FOR ALL SENATORS

The Bobby Baker case in Washington refuses to lie down and die, despite

earnest efforts of the Democratic majority on the Senate Rules Committee to kill

it off.

Robert G. Baker, of course, is the onetime secretary to the Senate majority

who became quite wealthy while in that position, and the legitimacy of whose

operations has been widely questioned.

Senator Clifford P. Case, Republican, of New Jersey, now suggests that all

Members of the U.S. Senate, whether Republican or Democratic, be required

by the Rules Committee to answer two questions:

1. Did you ever have any business or financial dealings with Bobby Baker,

directly or indirectly? If so, what were they?

2. Did Bobby Baker ever give you, get for you, offer you or offer to get

for you: any campaign contributions; any help in making up campaign deficits by gifts, purchase of tickets or otherwise; any retainer or employment;

any preferment in committee assignment or otherwise; anything of value?

Any Senator who can honestly answer "No" to those questions has nothing to

fear in the Baker case. Senators who would have to answer "Yes," and itemize

their replies, would contribute to honesty in government and prevention of

future cases like the Bobby Baker thing.

Let's get those questions in circulation at once.

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 3, 19641

REASONABLE COMPROMISE

The renewed demand in the Senate for a law disclosing the financial interests

of all Members of Congress is timely for two reasons. First, such a proposal

would be a logical outcome of the Bobby Baker investigation. Senator Case, of

New Jersey, voiced disappointment that the inquiry has given so little attention

•
1784 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

to the possible misconduct of Senators themselves in connection with Mr. Baker's

operations. But the investigating Rules Committee could, if it saw fit, recommend a barrier to future dubious operations by requiring all Members of Congress

to disclose their incomes and assets.

Senator Keating put the case for disclosure bluntly:

"If we fail, in the light of the hearings that have been held, to take affirmative

action not only regarding employees, but also as regards Senators, in my judgment

we shall be a great disappointment to the people of our country."

The second reason for hoping that Congress may find the courage to tighten

the rules of conduct for its own Members lies in the mounting concern over

congressional salaries. Soon or late Congress must increase the pay of its Members in order to avoid driving out many able legislators who do not have independent incomes. The House recently voted down substantial increases for its

own Members and other Federal employees because it could not face the issue

in an election year. But if a requirement for the disclosure of congressional

incomes and assets were combined with the pay bill it would become far more

acceptable from the public viewpoint. And most Congressmen would doubtless

regard a $10,000 salary increase in return for enactment of a disclosure rule a

good bargain.

[From the Milwaukee Journal, Apr. 3, 19641

BOBBY BAKER AND SENATORS

Senator Case (Republican, of New Jersey) if interested in getting a publicdisclosure measure out of the Senate Rules Committee. He has the belief,-not too

well shared in the Senate; that Congressmen ought to let their constituents

know what their business and other interests are.

The Rules Committee has shown little interest in the measure, so Senator Case

came up with another suggestion. He wants the committee—which has been conducting the Bobby Baker investigation—to ask each and every Senator whether

he ever had any dealings with Bobby Baker or got any campaign contributions:

with Baker's help.

This idea will undoubtedly get little further than the public disclosure bill.

As a Republican, Case hardly expects to have it disclosed that any member of

his party got help from the former Democratic majority's secretary to run a

campaign. But some Senators—Minority Leader Dirksen for one—were guests

at the Baker Carousel motel on occasion. Case's query would cover those eases.

So no one need expect a rush in either party to give Case much support, how--

ever right he is.

[From the Trentonian, Apr. 3, 1964]

IS "SOMETHING" WRONG?

No Democrat, though, is New Jersey's Senator Clifford P. Case (although some

of the more conservative Republicans have often reproached him for fraternizing with the enemy) and his words the other day were far from mild.

"Shocking inadequacy" was the term Senator Case used to characterize the

Senate Rules Committee investigation of the Baker case. That is speaking

strongly; but, if we admit that the object of an investigation is to discover

things, it is speaking accurately. For, as the New Jersey Senator went on to

point out, the investigation "at this stage has raised more questions than it

has answered." And this is the stage at which the majority of the committee

apparently would like to stop it. There is no secret why they would like to stop

it: the questions have been embarrassing enough; and the answers might very

well be a lot worse.

But, by its actions, the majority implies approval of a double standard of

conduct—it is wrong for a Senate employee to use his position for personal gain;

perfectly all right for a Senator.

Senator Case has suggested that a logical step in investigating the dealings

of the former secretary to the Senate majority would be to question the men

with whom he was in close and constant contact—the Members of the Senate

themselves. It's a good idea—and the fact that the Senate seems reluctant

to do it only makes the idea sound better.

•
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1785

•{From the New York FieraId Tribune, Apr. 5, 1964]

THE CASE OF THE U.S. SENATE

(By Roscoe Drummond)

WASHINGTON.—The Bobby Baker case ought to be called the "Case of the

U.S. Senate."

The abrupt—and "kindly"—termination of the Baker investigation may take

the heat off somebody, but it is not going to take the heat off the Senate itself.

The whole Senate is under a disgraceful cloud because of the way its highest

functionary (the secretary to the majority party) was able to exploit his powerful

and pervasive position to turn a small salary into a large fortune.

Of course, Bobby Baker has few defenders and fewer friends on Capitol Hill

today. His onetime close associates, Senators and former Senators, can now

hardly remember his name; though not long ago they were always saying, "ask

Bobby," "call Bobby," "tell Bobby."

But there are many who are disposed to defend or at least dismiss with a

shrug the way Baker used the Senate, used the Senators, and used his public

office for private profit. "But," they blandly say, "Bobby didn't violate any law.

He did nothing illegal."

That's the point. That's the heart of the matter. That is the very reason why

the U.S. Senate is as much on trial—if not more—in the Bobby Baker case than

Bobby Baker himself.

The reason Bobby Baker did not violate any law is because the Senate has

carefully seen to it that there was no law to violate.

The reason Bobby Baker did not become entangled in any conflict-of-interest

statute is because Congress has never enacted a conflict-of-interest statute

governing the conduct of its employees.

The reason Congress has never enacted a conflict-of-interest law governing its

staff is because, if it did so, it could hardly escape from applying the same law

to itself—to Congressmen and Senators.

They have never thought that such a law should apply to themselves or been willing to apply it. To such a law Congress has always said no, no, and no.

This is the issue which Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey—and some others—are now raising in the Senate. Senator Case is saying that the Senate

cannot afford to practice—and allow itself to benefit from—a double standard of

Government ethics. It does this by applying a conflict-of-interest law to the executive branch of the Government which makes it illegal for executive officials

to do what Bobby Baker did—but exempts itself.

The reason Bobby Baker is, in all probability, innocent of violating any law is that the Senate is guilty of failing to enact the necessary law.

This is why the Senate itself is responsible for the Bobby Baker mess.

There is another aspect of the limited Bobby Baker investigation which does

the Senate grave discredit. A high public official, who has no partisan stake in

the matter, put it this way in private conversation:

"I am nauseated and shocked by one facet of the affair Baker which seems

to have evoked little comment. I refer to the sly suggestion attributed to Baker

that he has no time to talk to Senate investigators because he is busy writing

a book.

"The implications are so clear to the uninitiated that they cannot possibly be

lost on the sophisticated people on both sides of the aisle. Can this man have

a host of America's most powerful men in such fear that he can openly and publicly threaten reprisals?"

Mr. Baker was finally called before the Senate Rules Committee and he politely

took the fifth amendment. Senator Case suggests that Senators could get around

the stone wall of the fifth amendment by revealing whatever information or ex- perience they may have had bearing on Baker's extracurricular dealings.

Anyone want to speak up?

[From the Sunday Herald Tribune, Apr. 5, 1964],

WATCHING THE WATCHDOG

First it was a leak of confidential executive branch personnel records, meant

to discredit an embarrassing Bobby Baker case witness (the insurance agent who said he'd provided that stereo set for the Johnsons, and who bought the Texas television time). And now Senator John J. Williams charges that his cor-
1786 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

respondence with various Federal agencies is being "monitored," with copies of

the agencies' answers being sent to the Senate Rules Committee.

What gives this charge special point, of course, is that Senator Williams is the

man chiefly responsible for the Baker probe's having been undertaken—by the

Rules Committee, whose Democratic majority has been trying for many weeks to

let go of its uncomfortably hot potato.

The White House showed great determination not to run down the source of

that earlier leak, despite the fact that it was both an affront to the Senate ( the

investigating committee had been denied the same records) and a gross violation

of the witness' individual rights. And Senator Williams isn't likely to get, at

least publicly, the kind of explanation he demands of what he calls the "highly

improper and most unusual procedure" followed with his inquiries.

But it's a reminder, again, of how sensitive the Baker scandal is. Both the

.Senate and the administration seem to have been more concerned with concealing

than revealing—which itself is rather revealing.

[From the New York World-Telegram, Apr. 7, 1964]

SENATOR CASE'S POINT

It appears the Senate Rules Committee, which was investigating Bobby Baker's

big deals, has quit its job and now will restrict itself to some kind of report

-deploring "activity which cannot be tolerated in the future," to quote Senator

Jordan, the chairman.

The report, the committee has indicated, will suggest ways of protecting the

Senate from conflicts of interest on the part of Senate employees. Nothing in the

committee's behavior suggests it will do or say anything about possible conflicts of

interest on the part of Senators.

But Senator Clifford Case, of New Jersey, is insisting on the same code of

-ethics for Senators as may be imposed on employees.

"Most glaring of all," he said in protest to the abrupt ending of the Baker

inquiry, "has been the committee's reluctance to view its responsibility as

embracing the conduct of Members of the Senate themselves, and its obvious

perpetuation of the double standard which Congress has long practiced—one

standard for others, another for its Members."

When he was summoned before the Rules Committee, Bobby Baker took the

fifth amendment; wouldn't talk at all.

Some evidence suggested some Senators may have been involved in his

.-affairs, but there were no followups.

So Case urges the committee to ask each Senator: "Did you ever have any

business or financial dealings, directly or indirectly, with Bobby Baker? If so,

-what were they r

Even Case sees no prospects that the Rules Committee will follow his idea.

Would any Senator care to volunteer?

[From the Camden (N.J.) Courier-Post, Apr. 9, 1964]1

CONGRESS SHIES AT "FULL DISCLOSURE"

New Jersey's senior U.S. Senator Clifford P. Case urges that every Senator

reveal any dealings he may have had with Bobby Baker, directly or indirectly.

"The public has a right to know and wants to know, whether and to what

extent the Senate and individual Members have been involved as pawns, partners,

or otherwise, in Baker's self-enriching operations," Case said on the Senate

floor last week.

In short, he asked, was Baker able to "manipulate the Government of the

United States?"

He asked that before the Senate Rules Committee reports its findings in the

Baker scandal, it question each Senator on any deals with the former secretary

of the Senate Democratic majority. So far, Case contended, the probe has

raised more questions than answers.

Before one jumps to a hasty conclusion that Case's speech was an election

:year gimmick, it should be stressed that for several years, including this year,

Case has introduced a "full public disclosure" bill.

• Disclosure of what? All sources of income and financial transactions by

'elected officials (Members of Congress) , by appointed top officials (anyone
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1787

In the executive branch earning $10,000 or more annually), and by high level

staff employees (the Bobby Bakers).

"What we should remember is that wheeler-dealers thrive in the shadows,"

he points out. "We need the glare of publicity if we are going to be able to

protect our Government processes against individuals bent on private gain at

public cost."

Like Case, we feel that any public office is a public trust and public business

should be transacted within public view. (A recent poll indicated 65 percent

of the public favors disclosure.)

But also like Case, we feel his disclosure bill has only the slimmest chance

of passing unless and until public opinion is so intensely aroused that the dissidents take to the woods.

Meanwhile, the bill's advocates and the public will have to continue to depend

upon the alertness and enterprise of the press. And of public officials with the

same honest dedication as Senator Case.

His bill would also require all communications, oral and written, made to any

regulatory agency concerning a specific case, and from any ex parte source, including Congressmen, be made a part of the public record of the case.

Current laws and regulations against conflict of interest apply only to the

executive branch of Government and not to Members of Congress. But Case

stresses Members of Congress frequently make decisions and sit on committees

which act on measures that directly or indirectly affect their personal financial

interest.

"Our bill seems pretty drastic to some people," Case readily acknowledges.

"But if it had been law, the Bobby Baker behavior could not have gone undetected and unquestioned as long as it did.

"The Senate would not have had to depend on the press to alert it to a situation

which reflects on the integrity of the Senate itself."

Case's measure is cosponsored by three Democratic Senators: Mrs. Maurine

Neuberger, of Oregon, Joseph S. Clark, of Pennsylvania, and Philip A. Hart, of

Michigan.

The Baker affair, charges Case, "has shown obvious perpetuation of the

standard which Congress has long practiced—one standard for its

Members, another for all others."

[From the Vineland (N.J.) Times-Journal, Apr. 9, 1964]

SENATOR CASE FIGHTS THE DOUBLE MORALITY STANDARD IN CONGRESS

(By Drew Pearson)

WASHINGTON.—Senator Clifford Case, Republican, of New Jersey, has made an

important point regarding a double morality standard for Members of Congress

as compared with other Government servants. He has pushed a bill calling upon

all Senators and Congressmen to disclose their property holdings, their law

clients, and other pecuniary interests. Congress, he says, must not set up one

standard for itself, another for Bobby Baker.

This column, as far back as the Truman administration, has urged a single

standard for all public servants. Harry Truman, toward the end of his administration, ordered all members of the executive branch to fill in a questionnaire listing their stocks, bonds, contracts, and other outside interests., But Truman could

not require Congress to follow the same procedure.

Since that time, the abuses of the double standard have increased, until I

detect a growing lack of public confidence in the Congress. This is unfortunate,

first, because in my opinion the majority of Congressmen are honest; second,

because there must be public confidence in Congress if we are to make democracy

work.

[From the Ridgewood (N.J.) Sunday News, Apr. 12, 1964]

NECESSARY TOE-STEPPING

Senator Case is stepping on the toes of members of the Nation's most exclusive

club—the U.S. Senate—by his insistence on a bill calling for simple disclosure of

private financial interests of Senators. The bill stems from the muddled circumstances concerning the notorious Bobby Baker case. Case insists on continuing the investigation, contending with impeccable logic that Baker's refusal

to testify on constitutional grounds did not justify termination of the case.
1788 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

Commented Senator Everett Dirksen, Republican, of Illinois, about the Case

reform proposal, "balderdash and piffle," terms of belittlement that will not

obscure the Senate's bounden duty to pursue the Baker case.

Senator Case has suggested that the Senate Rules Committee could obtain

necessary information by asking each Senator questions along these lines:

"Did Bobby Baker ever give you, get for you, offer you or offer to get for you

any campaign contributions; any help in making up campaign deficits by gifts,

purchase of tickets or otherwise; anything of value?"

We are certain that Senator Case is aware of the obstacles that lie in the path

of getting correct (honest) replies to such a questionnaire. Nevertheless, he is on

the right path in disregarding the hallowed tradition of the "Senate club," one of

Whose cardinal principles is never to inquire into the ethics of one's Senate colleagues. Senator Case is changing this dictum into "well, hardly ever."

[From the Record, Hackensack, N.J., Apr. 29. 1964],

THE CURE FOR CYNICISM

Annually since 1958 Senator Clifford P. Case, Republican, of New Jersey, has

been proposing legislation requiring that Members of Congress and persons in

the executive and legislative branches paid $15,000 up a year file a periodical

statement disclosing their income, their assets, and all of their financial transactions, including gifts. And annually since 1958 this newspaper has uttered

three rousing cheers and besought the statesmen to let us see, to this extent,

whether they're representing us or—well, to reduce it to a commonly understood

shorthand, are working for Bobby Baker.

Senator Case is undiscouraged ; again this week he took notice that Congress

Is considering adoption of a code of ethics proclaiming high goals of public service,

and Mr. Case said, "While a call to honor and integrity is always in order, I think

a good deal more than this is necessary." Once more he appealed to Congress

to require its Members to lay the facts on the line. He is undiscouraged. We

are made of less superhuman stuff. It is herewith conceded Congress will do no

such thing.

It is time perhaps to shift our attention from the instinctive behavior of Congressmen to the learned behavior of the people who elect them. Mr. Case is

shocked to read in a recent poll of public opinion that 50 percent of the people

think Congressmen represent special interests and only 30 percent of the people

think their Representatives represent the public interest. The poll, run by Louis

Harris, confirmed a deep strain of cynicism. It should do more than that.

Something is wrong not with Congressmen but with voters when consistently

people elect persons they suspect. We can't do much about Congressmen's morality. But we can change Congressmen. We can't compel every Senator to make

such personal disclosure as Mr. Case and some 30 other Members of this Congress

have made. But we can ask candidates to volunteer disclosure, and it might do

no harm to ask candidates for any and every elective office—there have been

legislators whose profits by reason of business in conflict of interest might have

startled their constituents; there have been such mayors and school trustees and

candidates for President. In time we might make disclosure an element in the

unwritten laws that govern the process of campaigning—babykissing, handshaking, breakfast with the PTA, beer with the boys, and disclosure. But this is a

reform we must impose on ourselves first; another revolution in expectations, as

it were. Going on in New Jersey this year is a campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Shall we begin?

[From the Philadelphia (Pa.) Inquirer, Apr. 30, 1964]

CONGRESSMEN FEAR RISING CYNICISM

(By John C. O'Brien)

WASHINGTON.—Thoughtful Members of Congress have been greatly shaken by

a poll indicating that 50 percent of those polled felt that the lawmakers represent special interests, while only 30 percent thought they represented the public

interest.

The poll, taken in the wake of the revelations about the financial operations

of Bobby Baker, former secretary of the Senate majority, confirms a cpaicisra

about the Nation's legislators that has been growing steadily.
4

FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1789

In a sense a Member of Congress is obliged to represent special interests

affecting the welfare of the people of his constituency. If he did not he probably

would not stay long in Congress.

If a tariff concession threatens an industry employing residents of his district,

-a Congressman tends to oppose the concession, even though it would serve the

national interest.

If, in the national interest, the Department of Defense proposes to close a

facility in a Congressman's district, he will oppose it because it would throw

some of his constituents out of work.

This kind of solicitude for a constituency's interest is not what the public has

in mind when it accuses Members of Congress of serving special interests.

What a substantial percentage of the voters suspect is that Congressmen tend to

look after the interests of corporations and other enterprises to which they are

indebted for campaign contributions or in which they hold stocks which contribute to their personal gain.

To allay these suspicions, several Members of Congress have proposed that

Members should be required to file annual statements of income and assets. A

few, Senator Joseph S. Clark, of Pennsylvania, and Senator Paul Douglas, of

Illinois,-to name two, have made such discolsures voluntarily.

Senator Clifford Case of New Jersey has been urging the enactment of disclosure legislation since 1958. His proposal is that Members of 'Congress and

those in the executive branch who earn $15,000 or more a year file income and

asset statements, which would include gifts.

Doubts about the integrity of the lawmakers, however, are not the only cause

of the current disenchantment with the National Legislature.

Many voters view Congress as an inefficient, irresponsible body, paralyzed by

archaic rules and procedures. Absenteeism has not gone unnoticed nor the

time and Government funds spent by members of committees on so-called factfinding visits to foreign countries,. which, in fact, are nothing more than pleasure

trips.

[From the Elizabeth (N.J.) Daily Journal, May 1, 1964]

POLL SHOWS DOUBT ABOUT CONGRESS

Legislation requiring Members of Congress and others in the $15,000 bracket

in the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government to file

annual financial statements would be one step toward prevention of another

I3obby Baker type episode. Senator Case, pressing for that legislation, asserts

It would have a salutary effect.

The Senator's view is fortified by the results of a poll showing that 50 percent of the people suspect the Members of Congress represent special interests

and only 30 percent think they are dedicated-to the public weal.

Those figures reflect a cynical appraisal which the Senate's own handling of

the exploits of its employee has not corrected: From the poll Senator Case

deduces the public doubts a real intent to reveal the whole Baker episode.

A reluctance to spread personal business on the record before the eyes of 180

million people is understandable, but it would seem to be the only way to weed

out the Bakers and to allay unjust suspicions. To reveal this personal information would be proof of a genuine dedication to a high standard of ethics for

Capitol Hill.

While Congress dawdles on the issue, 30 Members of the Senate and the House,

including Senator Case, voluntarily have filed the financial statements they

recommend in the dormant legislation. This should be sufficient incentive for

others who have nothing to fear through the same step.

1VIA1cn 13, 1964.

PUBLIC WANTS CONGRESSMEN To REPORT FULLY ON FINANCES

APPEAL FOR BILL FOUND IN ALL REGIONS; MAJORITY CITE HONESTY AS BEST POLICY

FOR CONGRESSMEN

(By George Gallup, director, American Institute of Public Opinion)

PRINCETON, N.J., March 12.—A substantial majority of the American people

today voice approval of a law which would require Congressmen to make public

disclosures of their financial holdings every year.

A
•

1790 FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES

This plan, embodied in a reform bill introduced by Senator Clifford Case, of

New Jersey, is now before the Senate Rules Committee. It is expected to remain

in committee until the probe of former Senate Secretary Bobby Baker is completed.

The Case proposal not only calls for public disclosures of the financial holdings

of all Members of Congress, but also requires all executive departments to keep 11.

written record of all requests made by any Member of Congress to any executiveoffice or regulatory commission.

To measure the state of public opinion on this matter, Gallup poll reporters

across the Nation asked this question:

"It has been proposed that Members of the House of Representatives and the

Senate be required to make public a record of their financial assets and holdings

every year. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?"

The findings:

Public record of assets Percent

Favor 65

Oppose 23

No opinion 12'

,Public awareness to conflict-of-interest cases in Government has not only arisen

because of the national publicity accorded the Bobby Baker proceedings, but because of similar problems that have cropped up in many States.

A campaign recently spearheaded by the New York Herald Tribune to correct

ethical practices in the New York State government has resulted in a special

committee on ethics, which has recommended a stringent code of behavior to the

State legislature.

The appeal for the congressional reform proposal is not confined to any onesection of the country, as these regional figures indicate:

Public record of assets?

[In percent]

Favor Oppose No opinion

East 63 24 13

Midwest 64 24 12

South 68 17 15

West 65 28 7

REASONS BEHIND PUBLIC'S POSITION

The chief reasons cited by the public in favor of the change are:

"If they are honest, there is no reason not to disclose their finances." * * *

"There is too much going on now under cover." * * * "Congress should apply

the same rules to itself as it does to the President's Cabinet." * * * "It might

keep a few people honest who might be tempted to make deals."

Reasons given by those who oppose the change are chiefly concerned with

invasion of an individual's privacy:

"It would take away the personal freedom of these men if they were required

to divulge their finances." * * * "It might keep some persons from running

for office."

A second reason given by persons who oppose the change is that some public

officials would always find a way to deceive and "none of them would tell the

truth."

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 20, 19641]

PRESTIGE OF SENATE, NOT JOHNSON, SEEN CHIEF BAKER VICTIM

(By Louis Harris)

In the view of most Americans, the Bobby Baker case has cast a shadow

of a doubt over President Johnson's ability to handle corruption in Washington.

But in itself, at this reading, it is unlikely that the Baker episode will prove

to be conclusive at the polls next November. In fact, the prestige of the Senate

appears to have suffered more than that of the President as a result of the

investigation of the business dealings of the former Senate aid.
FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF SENATE OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES 1791

As the revelations of Baker's financial activities unfolded, public confidence

in Mr. Johnson's ability to keep corruption out of Government went down rather

_precipitously. He still holds a bare majority, however, among a carefully

.drawn cross section of the American people asked to rate him positively or

negatively on this aspect of his job:

Johnson rating on keeping corruption out of Government

[In percent]

April February

Positive 

Negative 

51

49

69

31

The Bobby Baker case has been widely followed by nearly 9 out of every 10

voters. Despite the public attention the case has received, the vast majority of

Americans do not feel that the case has drastically altered their view of either

the President or the Senate.

When questioned directly on the subject, better than 7 out of 10 persons said

the Bobby Baker investigation had not changed their opinion of Lyndon Johnson.

Baker case and LBJ Total Nation

(percent)

Think less of LBJ 14

Think more of LBJ 3

Makes no difference 73

Not sure 10

Where the Baker case made a difference in these circumstances, among one in

six voters, Mr. Johnson has been hurt by it. But most people are not prepared to

condemn the President over it alone.

A somewhat larger number of people are openly critical of the Senate over the

Baker episode:

Baker case and the Senate Total Nation

(percent)

Think less of Senate 21

"Think more of Senate 5

Makes no difference 60

Not sure 14

One in five voters felt the Baker case cast no credit on the Senate. The generally expressed feeling was that the atmosphere of the Nation's highest legislative

body should have been kept more clear of such business deals. The dignity of

the Senate has been sullied to some degree.

Rather than shocking the public about the Senate, the Baker episode has confirmed rather longstanding cynicism about the Nation's top legislators. For,

when asked directly if Congress tends more to represent the interests of the people

or special interests working for private gain, people come down on the side of

suspecting Congress of the latter by five to three:

Congress versus special interests Total Nation

(percent)

Represents special interests 50

Represents public interests 30

Not sure 20

The Bobby Baker case does not now appear to be the kind of exposé that will

bring down the Government now in power in Washington. But clearly the whole

.affair has not enhanced the public's confidence in the men who on almost any day

are wont to claim for the Senate the encomium of "the world's greatest deliberative body." Obviously the public has quite a different view from this.


m400,04, p

co

4-2.) 17961 

- NIA ST 

A

S‘V 11/A10 6/ 44

II 11)1 1 11 1 II