Advanced Search
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 24, 1973 - Testimony of Gerald Alch
Mr. DASH. Now, were you, for example, aware that Mr. Hunt may have been in frequent contact with the Committee for the Re-Election of the President officials or White House officials? Mr. ALCH. I was not. I rarely saw Mr. Hunt and, as you know, when the trial started and his plea of guilty was accepted by Chief Judge Sirica, he was out of it. Mr. DASH. It is true, though, is it not, that you did go to the office of Mr. Bittman, Mr. Hunt's lawyer, with Mr. McCord on January 8, the first day of the trial? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir. Mr. DASH. Then you had a private meeting with Mr. Bittman while Mr. McCord was in another part of the office? Mr. ALCH. I had a meeting with Mr. Bittman, a discussion with Mr. Bittman. I hesitate to call it a private meeting because, as I explained yesterday, we walked into the office, came into the library of the office where other lawyers were seated. Mr. Bittman was not there. I walked back to his office to see if he was there. He was. Mr. DASH. Was anybody else in the office? Mr. ALCH. No, sir. Mr. DASH. So you were alone with Mr. Bittman? Mr. ALCH. Yes, sir.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[00.02.00--in to Sen. MONTOYA questioning former CRP Treasurer HUGH SLOAN about campaign expenditures given to Gordon LIDDY] Senator MONTOYA. Could your figures with Mr. Porter differ in an amount close to $50,000? Would that be possible? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, again, after a year, it is possible. This is my best recollection of what the figure was. The Liddy matter, I think, for instance, I am far surer on that figure than Mr. Porter's because Mr. Liddy was the issue at the time. Senator MONTOYA. To the best of your recollection and after reconciliation with Mr. Porter, do you still state that you disbursed to him the sum of $100,000? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, that is my best recollection. If he has a different recollection, I would not--you know, I would not stand on the hard figure of $100,000. That is the best approximation of what I recall I gave. Senator MONTOYA. Were you familiar with the activities of Mr. Porter? Mr. SLOAN. In terms of what he did with his money? Senator MONTOYA. Yes. Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator MONTOYA. Are you now? Mr. SLOAN. I have read some stories in the press, yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. What. information call you give this committee from those reports and from what, you have gathered since you left the committee? Mr. SLOAN. I believe it came out at the criminal trial, that of the funds I had given to Mr. Porter, he evidently, in turn, had turned over $35,000 of those funds to Mr. Liddy, which produced the aggregate figure that was used in the trial, the funds that were made available to Mr. Liddy. Senator MONTOYA. Did you also ascertain that some of this money was used for the "dirty tricks" part, of the campaign? Mr. SLOAN. There was a story about a student named Mr. Brill. There is a, convoluted chain of custody here I believe, from Mr. Porter to Mr. Rees to 'Mr. Gordon to Mr. Brill for--I am not sure "spying" is the right word, but whatever those activities were. Senator MONTOYA. Are you aware, of any other extended activities besides those two instances in this particular category? Mr. SLOAN. I think those are, the only two that I am aware of, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. You stated that a report on finances was given to Mr. Stans on one or two occasions, did you not? Mr. SLOAN. In terms of these cash funds, yes, sir; there were two or three reports in that, period from February 15, when he came on board, until my final report which I gave on June 23. Senator MONTOYA. And did you not, state the purpose of those disbursement disbursements as told by those individuals, if they told you? Mr. SLOAN. I have never been told directly by any of these individuals, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. I believe You questioned some disbursements to Mr. Porter and Mr. Liddy at one time and took this matter up with Mr. Stans; did you not? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; I did. Senator -MONTOYA. And you also took this matter up with Mr. Magruder, is that correct? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. And Mr. Magruder told you in turn that you were not, to question the request at, all, but to make the disbursements as they were requested of you, is that correct? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA, And did you file or prepare any internal reports as to what you were doing with this money? Mr. SLOAN. Just these reports I gave Secretary Stans. They were the only reports and he was, the only recipient of those reports. Senator MONTOYA. Did you provide any copy of any reports to the White House? No, sir--oh, excuse me, not of these cash funds, no Mr. SLOAN. NO, sir; not to my knowledge, Senator MONTOYA. Well any other reports? Mr. SLOAN. As I understand it, and I think this happened after I left in terms of the aggregate report of all contributors, we put, together a reconciliation of the pre-April 7 period by category; for instance all contributors who gave above $200 000 might be category 1, above $100,000 category 2, and so forth'. Senator MONTOYA. Would you further categorize category 1 and category 2? What particular information did you really specify by way of more definition? Mr. SLOAN. Well, these reports merely list the name of the person, the address, and the total amount, I mean the aggregate figure of what they had given in multiple--it would include all cash, currency, and securities. Senator MONTOYA. Do I understand you to say these reports reflected the disbursement prior to April 7 to Mr. Liddy, Mr. Porter, and to the others? Mr. SLOAN. NO, sir; excuse me, Senator, these are contributors, reports, not disbursements reports. I misunderstood you. I apologize. The report I am referring to is a listing of all contributors without the dollar amount by category, I believe was made available to the White House. Disbursements, I do not believe any reports were given to the White House. Senator MONTOYA. Who received a report on the disbursements besides Mr. Stans? [00.06.49--shot of SLOAN'S WIFE listening to testimony, appearing concerned] Mr. SLOAN. As far as in terms of the cash funds he is the only individual I ever gave that report to. Senator MONTOYA. You never gave any of these reports to Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Magruder Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator MONTOYA. Do you know whether or not Mr. Stans gave them? Mr. SLOAN. I do not of my personal knowledge. Senator MONTOYA. Did you ever talk to Mr. Magruder, Mr. Mitchell or to anyone else, other than Mr. Stans, and verbally tell them how you were disbursing this cash? Mr. SLOAN. Well, there were, as the authority for this distribution of funds evolved, there were obviously conversations with these individuals. Certainly Mr. Magruder had a working knowledge of who was receiving a number of these distributions. For instance, he was responsible for the one he received, the Liddy one, the Porter one, probably did not know about the one to Mr. Strachan, Mr. Kalmbach separate. I would say those are the ones he was familiar with. [00.07.44]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.58.13] Senator MONTOYA. Then, you had an April meeting from which you emerged and went down to the CRP and told. I think Mr. Porter that the secrecy was out and now you could divulge everything? Mr. MAGRUDER. That is correct Senator MONTOYA. You told Mr. Porter that Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes. sir. Senator MONTOYA. Now, who participated at. this White House meeting in April when this decision was made or communicated to you? Mr. MAGRUDER. Let, me move back. On the, Wednesday before I think it was a Wednesday., I called Mr. Haldeman's office,. I think this conversation is taped and I talked to Hibgy, who was; his assistant, and I said , "Larry, I have, as you know, specific problems and it is very difficult for me to continue my on this matter. Could you ask Bob if there are any instructions that I should have that would be beneficial to me? I was now asking for guidance from Mr. Haldeman. Mr. Higby came back to me and said, "Yes. Bob can't talk to you but he wants You to know that the President wants you to tell the truth," and --or he wants you to tell the truth," I am not sure whether it was the President or he, "and that you Should take the advice of your lawyers." Then, on Thursday and Friday my lawyers dealt 'with the U.S. attorney's office. On Saturday I met with the U.S. attorneys in the Morning and through the afternoon. Mr. Ehrlichman called my attorney's office and asked me if I would come to his office. The U.S. attorneys and my attorneys agreed that that would be appropriate as a courtesy. We went, my two attorneys and myself went to Mr. Ehrlichman's office and, in effect, gave him a capsule version of what I have discussed today. My understanding is that he taped that conversation also. Senator MONTOYA. Who called You at the U.S. attorney's office, Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman? Mr. MAGRUDER. No, it, was Mr. Higby, -who was Mr. Ehrlichman's assistant, called, as I recall, for ;Mr. Ehrlichman I correct, that It might have been Mr. Hall, who was Mr. Ehrlichman's assistant. It might have been one of their assistants, asking that I talk to Mr. Ehrlichman. Senator MONTOYA. Did you talk to Mr. Ehrlichman then? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. From the U.S. attorney's office, or did you go from there, to the White House? Mr. MAGRUDER. We were in my attorney's office with the U.S. attorney. We went, from there to the White House and met in Mr. Ehrlichman office, my two attorneys and myself. Senator MONTOYA. What was that -meeting about? Mr. MAGRUDER. We told them what we had told the U.S. attorney basically, and Mr. Ehrlichman said, "The, President wants you to tell the, truth as you have already done and wishes you well," something of that kind. Senator MONTOYA. NOW, Mr. Magruder, -Mr. Porter testified before this committee and also gave, a statement that you had told him that you had committed perjury 12 times. Is that true? Mr. MAGRUDER. I think the 12 was figure of speech. I have learned I have become fairly expert in matters of this kind--that since perjury is committed each time you tell a story, not the same story. In other words, you can tell the same story 10 times; that is 10 counts of perjury I think I told an incorrect story quite, a number of times, so consequently, I indicated to him that I had committed perjury 12 times, not meaning 12 specifically, but meaning quite a few times Senator MONTOYA. Quite a few times about, the same thing? Is that what you mean? Mr. . MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. In other words, you know, once in front of the grand jury, then again in front of the same grand jury, and so on. Senator MONTOYA. Now, going back to the coverup sequences there were, quite, a few variations and quite a few changes made in the coverup, were there not, as the exigencies would arise? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well, we had to move. very quickly before the FBI got to Mr. Porter and myself on the basic. framework Once the FBI got to us, we. had to pretty well stay with that at, general story. We, made some changes, but, basically, the coverup story we used was developed before, our interviews with the FBI. Senator MONTOYA. Well, you used a coverup story before the grand jury and during the trial, is that correct? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir; that is correct. Senator MONTOYA. Was the matter of executive privilege discussed as part, of this coverup during your meetings with Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Dean, or Mr. Ehrlichman? Mr. MAGRUDER. NO, I never--no one brought up that, Subject to me. I had indicated that, I would not, ever invoke executive privilege because as I understand it, I certainly was not qualified. Senator MONTOYA. No, but. did they discuss it as a shelter for themselves? Mr. MAGRUDER. Not with me, sir, no. Senator MONTOYA. NOW, Mr.--- Mr. MAGRUDER. Excuse me. Senator, -Mr. Dean may have mentioned a couple of times that that might be an approach he might take, yes, but that would be the only one that I call remember. Senator MONTOYA. Now, what specific part did Mr. Dean have in the, Coverup? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well Senator, he was one of the people, that dealt with this situation and dealt with me directly and dealt -with Mr. Mitchell, dealt with Mr. LaRue. as to all of the, coverup. The story 'was obviously only one and probably the easiest, part Of the coverup, taking care of, handling of the defendants was what was most difficult. My understanding from him and from others was that he, was involved in all aspects of this coverup.; And as I gathered--as you gathered from the newspapers, there were other activities that I was not aware of involving the FBI and. the CIA and so on. that Mr. Dean involved in. I was not aware of any of those activities. Senator MONTOYA. When did you quit working for the CRP or the Inaugural Committee? [01.04.21--TAPE OUT]
Capitol Journal - Budget and Taxes
(01:00:00) WETA logo, PBS funding credits (01:00:14) Opens to shots of Senators standing, clapping and holding hands - footage contained in window within center of the screen, under window runs banner reading Capitol Journal, from tv studio Capitol Journal host HODDING CARTER introduces show, Capitol Journal title screen and animation (01:00:38) In studio Carter explains show's topic - the new bipartisan supported budget and tax code, Senator PETER DOMENICI comments on the Senate's bi-partisan consensus on the budget, on screen text compares the Senate's budget to that of President Reagan (01:02:33) Carter standing outside the Capitol Building segues to the House's formulation of a budget, members of the House meet in a Democratic Caucus in the Capitol, Carter back outside the Capitol Building, at a press conference Senator LAWTON CHILES comments on tax reform, Senator ROBERT PACKWOOD speaks to other members of the Senate Finance Committee, footage of lobbyists stalking Congressmen in the halls of the Capitol, Senator Packwood explains how the new tax codes were formulated, voting of the Senate Finance Committee on tax revisions - Senators hug and shake hands over unanimous decision to support tax revision, on screen text displays tax revisions passed by the Senate in their new tax code (01:06:32) Carter back outside the Capitol Building segues back to discussion of the budget which now faces the House - Senator Chiles comments on the House's reception of the Senate Budget (01:07:30) Back in studio Carter segues to interviews conducted earlier with three Congressman: first is Representative WILLIAM GRAY who Carter interviews outside the Capital Building - they discuss Gray's feelings about the Senate budget, attaining bi-partisan consensus on a budget and the difference between Senate and House republicans, next is Representative ROBERT MICHE who Carter interviews in an office - they discuss what House Republicans are looking for in a budget and if they can agree with House Democrats, last is Senator BILL BRADLEY who Carter interviews in an office - they discuss the new tax code, how it was developed and where it is going (01:17:03) Back in the studio Carter introduces his discussion panel: LINDA WERTHEIMER of National Public Radio and KEVIN PHILLIPS of American Political Report, they discuss the new tax code being developed in Congress and its effect on the economy, and the new budget and whether it will bring the savings its claims (01:26:34) Carter thanks guests and closes out show, credits roll (01:27:30) PBS funding credits
Capitol Journal - Budget, Superfund, Immigration and Drugs
(01:00:00) WETA logo, PBS funding credits (01:00:13) Capitol Journal opening credits and animation (01:00:34) Capitol Journal host MARK SHIELDS and HODDING CARTER sit in a tv studio in front of a large monitor on which is picture of the House floor, two hosts discuss Congressional stand off on the budget and other end of the fiscal year issues, on screen text lists legislation currently going through the House and Senate (01:02:12) In studio Shields segues to Congressional footage regarding the budget, Senator MARK HATFIELD - Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee - asks for the passage of a stop-gap budget to keep the Congress running for another week, shots of various unidentified congressmen, Representative TRENT LOTT criticizes the continuing resolution budget passed by the House calling it "bloated", various shots of the Capital Building (01:04:03) Shields interviews Representatives LEON PANETTA and LYNNE MARTIN both of the House Budget Committee in their respective offices, they both give explanations as to why the national debt has continued to grow and what they believe should be done about stopping the annual deficit (01:07:11) Back in studio Shields and Carter discuss the National debt and deficit and what they mean to the Democrats, Republicans and the average American, they also discuss the new budget and how the money in it is being allotted (01:11:28) Carter segues to examination of the Superfund renewal, families of toxic waste victims hold a press conference on Capital Hill calling for the renewal of the Superfund - fund used to clean up toxic waste, Representative DENNIS ECKHART points out to the House the anniversary of the Superfund which as far as renewal has gone over looked, shots of a House / Senate Committee designed to reformulate the Superfund (01:13:35) Back in studio Carter and Shields talk about whether or not the White House administration will pass Congress' Superfund renewal (01:14:50) Shields segues to immigration reform, Representative PETER RODINO, Representative DANIEL LUNGREN, Representative ROMANE MAZZOLI, Representative TRENT LOTT, Representative Panetta, and Representative ROBERT MICHEL on the House floor all give their two cents about immigration reform (01:17:45) In an interview with Shields Senator ALAN SIMPSON voices frustration over what has become of his immigration bill (01:18:35) Back in studio Shields and Carter discuss the fallen immigration reform legislation, Carter segues to the drug bill, Senator JOSEPH BIDEN speaking before the Senate calls on senators to check their partisan "six-shooters" at the door, on screen text displays the proposed anti-drug bill measures, Senator BARRY GOLDWATER speaking on the Senate floor criticizes House suggestions to introduce the U.S. armed forces into the drug war, Senator MACH MATTINGLY (?), Senator ALFONSE D'AMATO and Senator ROULA HAWKINS all speak before the Senate in favor of the death penalty, onscreen text displays the costs in involved in the House and Senate anti-drug bills, Senator WILLIAM ARMSTRONG points out the hypocrisy behind supporting a budget inflating anti-drug bill (01:23:11) Back in studio Carter and Shields discuss the anti-drug legislation being debated in Congress and end of the term Congressional issues relative to the upcoming elections (01:27:10) Shields closes out the show, credits roll (01:27:30) PBS funding credits
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Statement of John Dean.
John Dean. I told him that on Monday the 19th, I had received a message from one of the Re-election Committee lawyers who had spoken directly with Hunt and that Hunt had sent a message to me demanding money. I then explained to him that the message that Hunt had told O'Brien the preceding Friday to be passed on to me. I told the President I'd asked O'Brien why to Dean, and O'Brien had asked Hunt the same question. But Hunt had merely said you just pass this message on to Dean. The message was that Hunt wanted $72,000 for living expenses and $50,000 for attorney's fees and if he did not get the money and get it quickly that he would have a lot of seamy things to say about what he had done for John Ehrlichman while he was at the White House. If he did not receive the money, he would have to reconsider his options. I informed the President that, I had passed this message on to both Haldeman and Ehrlichman asked me if I had discussed the matter with Mitchell. I had told Ehrlichman that I had not done so and Ehrlichman asked me to do so. I told the President I had called Mitchell pursuant to Ehrlichman's request, but I had no idea of what was happening with regard to the request.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Statement of John Dean.
John Dean. I then told the President that this was just typical of the type of blackmail that the White House would continue to be subjected to and that I did not know how to deal with it. I also told the President that I thought that I would as a result of my name coming out during the Gray hearings be called led before the grand jury and if I was called to testify before the grand Jury or the Senate committee I would have to tell the facts the way I know them. I said I did not know if executive privilege would be applicable to any appearance I might have before the grand jury. I concluded by saying that it is going to take continued perjury and continued support of these individuals to perpetuate the coverup and that I did not believe it was possible to so continue it. Rather I thought it was time for surgery on the cancer itself and that all those involved must stand up and account for themselves and that the President himself get out in front of this matter. I told the President that I did not believe that all of the seven defendants would maintain their silence forever. In fact, I thought that one or more would very likely break rank.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.47.12] Mr. STANS. There was a receipt of $3,000 from two men in Omaha that Mr. Sloan received after April 7 and before June 23 that I was not aware of until the $81,000 were turned over to Mr. LaRue. At that time I asked Mr. LaRue to handle that also and either get clearance from the contributors to deposit that money or return it to them. Mr. LaRue told me sometime later that he had not been able to do it with the result that the $3,000 was not returned to them, and in order to clear the matter we ran down the names of the contributors and reported them in our report that was filed last Saturday. That at is the second item of money received. There was a third contribution in cash of $50,000 received from a Lehigh Valley farmer's cooperative through its attorney in Washington that was received by the treasurer after April 7 and before June 23. I was not aware of the details of that transaction and did not learn about, it until October. We have since been able to identify the source of the money and it has also been reported in our last report to the General Accounting Office. Those are three transactions. There were some other miscellaneous cash items received from contributors that I do not recall, whose names were reported and the money was put in the, bank just as though it was by check so that it has no distinction. Senator MONTOYA. Did you receive many contributions over and above $10,000 in cash? Mr. STANS. Before I answer that, could I complete my other answer, because there was one other transaction? Senator MONTOYA. Yes. Mr. STANS. There was a total of $39,000 in cash received in two transactions representing funds raised by former Gov. Tim Babcock of Montana. We did not get the names of the contributors until recently, and that money has now been reported to the General Accounting Office in our last report. Now, as to your last question, did we receive many contributions of $10,000, in excess of $10,000 in cash? I would have to guess, Senator, as I do not have any list in front of me. I would guess that we probably received 30, possibly 35 contributions of $10,000 or more in cash. Senator MONTOYA. Let us go into the $20,000 contributions in cash. How many would you say you received in that, category? Mr. STANS. $20,000? Well, you are testing my memory now and I am not quite sure. I would say that perhaps five less than the number I gave you before that were in $10,000 amounts, So that the balance of 25 to 30 would have been $20,000 or more. Senator MONTOYA.. Let us go into the $50,000 bracket. How many of those did you receive? Mr. STANS. Well, I have to do a considerable amount of guessing here, I would say about 10, maybe 12. Senator MONTOYA. Of course, what, I am trying to elicit from you, Mr. Stans, it has nothing to do with the trial in New York, I want you to understand that. Mr. STANS, I understand that. Mr. BARKER. Senator Montoya, any answers Mr. Stans would make he will eliminate any references to that. Is that understood? Senator MONTOYA. Yes, I want him to. Let-- Mr. STANS. Then, you have to reduce each amount I gave you by one. [Laughter.) Senator MONTOYA. Let us go into the cash disbursements, Mr. Stans. I believe you mentioned that, before April 7 that you authorized or tacitly approved a disbursement of $350,000 to Mr. Kalmbach. Mr. STANS. May I correct, that, slightly? I had knowledge of it after it, happened, I raised no objection to it, but I do not recall ever approving it as such. And the payment was not made to Mr. Kalmbach It was made by Mr. Sloan 'at the direction of Mr. Kalmbach to Gordon Strachan of the White House staff. [00.52.48]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.20.03] Senator WEICKER. Official sources being what Mr. MAGRUDER. Being the Justice Department. Senator WEICKER. Did you know of any influence exerted by the White House over U.S. attorneys and/or the grand jury? Mr. MAGRUDER. No: I do not. AS a matter of fact, at least in relation to the U.S. attorneys 1 got the opposite impression. Senator WEICKER. You got the opposite impression from whom? Mr. MAGRUDER. Pardon? Senator WIECKER You got the opposite impression from whom? Mr. MAGRUDER. From Mr. Dean, primarily Senator WEICKER. Well, if he gave. you the opposite impression so far as the U.S. attorneys were concerned, who was he talking about when he indicated that you would not be indicted? Mr. MAGRUDER. You were indicating whether there was any influence, My indication from Mr. Dean was that they had no influence over the U.S. attorney. But when evidently the U.S. attorneys had decided not to indict me after the August 16 grand jury appearance, and they transmitted that to the appropriate officials, Mr. Dean evidently -was notified of that fact. Senator WEICKER. Did you ever learn that. Mr. McCord Was receiving information from the Internal Security Division of the Justice Department ? Mr. MAGRUDER. I do not think I knew that before I read it in the papers. But I could not, be--I would not, be sure about. that as a singular fact. He did receive information that he passed on to us at times which I think now, in recollecting probably came from that Division. Senator WEICKER. Now, what did Mr. Strachan do before he went to work for Mr. Haldeman? Mr. MAGRUDER. He worked for me at, the, White House. Senator WEICKER. Now, in the, earliest, part of your testimony this morning, and this will be, a matter- of the. transcript which I have not had an opportunity to review. but, relying on my recollection, in setting the, stage of personnel at the. top level you indicated Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Strachan, liaison to Mr. Haldeman and I thought you said Mr. Haldeman as liaison. Mr., MAGRUDER. Mr. Haldeman was the official, the. senior White House official who dealt, directly and was responsible for--in direct dealings with our committee. Mr. Strachan was his aide in doing the, day-to-day leg work in relation to this. Senator WEICKER. And you indicated during the course of your testimony that you reported matters to Mr. Strachan which you cared to have come to the attention of Mr. Haldeman is that correct? Mr. MAGRUDER. I think what I stated- Senator WEICKER. I am trying to establish the chain. Mr. MAGRUDER. What I think I stated this morning was that all documents and all activity that we engaged in by prior agreement with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman went, directly to Mr. Strachan for Mr. Haldeman's perusal or for whatever action he, may deem appropriate. Senator WEICKER. And Mr. Haldeman's function then would be to liaison with the President. is that not, correct? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. [00.23.36--the hypothetical link to President NIXON] Senator WEICKER. All right Now, we are going to try to walk through the particular series of event's all of which were, referred to in your testimony this morning. And they all relate to the conversations that you had with Mr. Strachan. Is it true, Oat the first, conversation that you had with Mr. Strachan about the Liddy project was after the January 22 meeting? Mr. MAGRUDER. To my recollection would have been after. because I cannot recall discussing in any detail the Liddy project with Liddy until he presented it, to Mr. Mitchell. Senator WEICKER. Or any---- Mr. MAGRUDER. There probably were discussions -with Mr. Strachan about the fact that Mr. Liddy was going to do intelligence work for us before that date, but not as to the specifies of his proposal since I saw it for the first time at that meeting. Senator WEICKER. Did you discuss then, I just want to establish this without going into it in great depth unless you care to go into it, are you indicating to me that there might have been discussions with Mr. Strachan about the type of' it project -which was specifically presented to you. at the January 27 meeting prior to January 27? Mr. MAGRUDER. 'No. I simply--I am sure we discussed Mr. Liddy's intelligence-gathering role but since I did not know the specifics of his project, it must have been in general terms. Senator WEICKER. All right. SO we can start then definitely after the January 27 meeting You did report details of that meeting? Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir. [00.25.30]
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Gordon C. Strachan, July 23, 1973
U.S. Senator Edward Gurney (R-FL) asks former White House aide Gordon C. Strachan about the substance of the phone conversation he monitored after the June 30th meeting between Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman and Director of Committee to Re-Elect the President and former Attorney General John Mitchell. Senator Gurney asks about the political memos Strachan prepared and how they were prepared. Strachan says the memoranda would summarize the information he had accumulated from the politically-active people on the White House staff and from the Committee to Re-Elect the President. Senator Gurney asks Strachan who was his contact at C.R.E.E.P. Strachan gives a list of senior advisers who he contacted and for what reason. Senator Gurney asks if deputy campaign director Jeb Magruder was one of the people he contacted and how often. Strachan says he would contact him daily.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.29.13] Senator GURNEY. So in November 1972, from your discussion with him, it would be your impression that the $350,000 was there at that, time'? Mr. STANS. That was my impression until he told me that another $22,000 had actually been spent. Senator GURNEY. Did he say when? Mr. STANS. I do not--no. I am sure he did not. Senator GURNEY. Did he say what for? Mr. STANS. Well, I have to hedge on this, because I do not know. I just assumed since it a polling fund, that it had been spent for polling. But recently, I have learned, reading one of the depositions, that it may have been spent for advertising. Senator GURNEY. Another thing that puzzles me. My understanding of this $350,000 is that it went to Haldeman. We have no direct evidence on that, but we do know that Mr. Strachan--- Haldeman's aide-picked it up. Was it not your understanding that it went to Haldeman? Mr. STANS. I had no understanding on that, Senator. The transaction was really handled by Mr. Kalmbach and my knowledge about it was entirely peripheral . At the beginning, I heard, as I testified yesterday, that the White House wanted some money for polling purposes to have to use in its discretion, and subsequently, found out that the money had been paid to the White House. But I really played no part in that transaction, and I believe Mr. Kalmbach will take the full responsibility for it. [00.30.45-- cut to LEHRER in studio] [there are a series of cuts here, I think that it indicates that the speech by NIXON was excised from the tape] [00.31.09--LEHRER reintroduces the questioning of STANS about a $350,000 cash fund being kept at the White House] [00.31.31--Sen. GURNEY] Senator GURNEY. You never heard at any time that Mr. Dean received this money or had any part in the supervision of it, handling of it, or disbursing of it? Mr. STANS. No. I never understood that Mr. Dean was handling the money. Senator GURNEY. Did you ever ask Mr. Dean at this time, or when he asked for the $22,000, why he was handling the money? Apparently, at that time, he must have had something to do with it. Mr. STANS. I didn't ask him why he was making the request. We had discussed the $350,000 on several occasions before--first, when he asked me to pay the polling bills, and second, when we considered the possibility of returning it to the committee. And I assumed that he was in these discussions because of his position as counsel in the White House. Senator GURNEY. Did you check with either Haldeman or Ehrlichman on this $22,000? Mr. STANS. No, I did not. [00.32.35] Senator GURNEY, Why didn't Dean go to the treasurer? The treasurer is the man who I understand, from the testimony, was making almost all of the disbursements with the exception of a few cash ones we have talked about here. Why should he come to you? Why shouldn't he go to the treasurer? Mr. STANS. Well, again, Senator, I can only presume. We had a new treasurer after Mr. Sloan left, Dean had very little contact with him and I doubt that he even knew him. I think that is the reason he called me. Senator GURNEY, You testified that you learned about the Watergate break-in, as I recall, in the newspapers? Is that correct? Mr. STANS. That is correct. Senator GURNEY. Now, of course, as you, as we all know, there was great consternation when this happened and a flurry of conferences and phone calls between the key people who were running the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Did you have any conferences or phone calls on June 17 or 18 regarding Watergate with anyone? Mr. STANS. I don't recall any conferences on the 17th) and I was not in the office on the 18th. so my answer would be other than the possibility that I may have said to somebody, that is a silly thing to do, based on the newspaper headlines, I had no conferences about the transaction. Senator GURNEY. Did you have any phone calls? Mr. STANS. None that my records show. Senator GURNEY. Do you recall any? Mr. STANS. I do not recall any. Senator GURNEY. At some point in time, of course, you learned as we all have, about Watergate, the people who were the key people in it, and to the best of your recollection when did you learn about Watergate and who were the key people in it and from whom? Mr. STANS. The first thing I learned about Watergate, to the best of my recollection was on June 23 when I received a call from Fred LaRue, as I testified yesterday and he said: "Do you know Kenneth Dahlberg?" And I said: "Yes. I know Kenneth Dahlberg very well." He said: "Well, did you know that his contribution ended up in the bank account of one Of the fellows who was arrested in the, Watergate?" And I said: "To the best of my knowledge Mr. Dahlberg didn't make a contribution, particularly in that amount of money that you mentioned. He said: "Well , we had better talk about it." So he came down to my office and we reviewed the situation. I recalled, of course, the, circumstances under which Dahlberg had given us the Check, and we culled Dahlberg on the phone and got him to come to Washington to review the whole matter, That is my first knowledge of the Watergate situation
Congress: We The People 8/23/1983
Charles Gibson, (Charlie Gibson) television reporter, The average piece in evening news show is minute and half, minute and 45 seconds. By the time you explain the difference between the Subcommittee and the Committee, the Floor and the Conference Committee and coming back the House and the Senate, you ve killed half your minute 30.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.55.24] Mr. SLOAN. I, in destroying the backup material, I did so with the clear and positive understanding relayed to me by him that he intended the material I gave him, which covered the same transactions essentially in a different, format as a permanent record of the campaign. I assumed that that record would still be in existence but it evidently is not. Senator GURNEY. And you also understood as part of that transaction that he wanted you to get rid of the backup information there would only be one copy in his possession. Mr. SLOAN. I suppose it is an inference he asked for one and recommendations to me or the conversation that led to my destroying the earlier reports and the summary book was with Mr. Kalmbach. when I asked his advice now that we have checked this all out and I and have this final report ready, what do you think I ought to do with these records? He operated as my boss through the entire earlier period, had a very close relationship with Secretary Stans, he was clearly a person I would look to for guidance in this kind of situation. Senator GURNEY. Now then, on this whole business of cash, some of which was deposited according to the graph up there, and some was paid out. Was there any general discussion between YOU and Mr. Stans or anybody else as to how cash was to be handled, that is, what was to be kept in safes and what was to be deposited in bank accounts? I would say the physical security of the money would be a judgment I would have made as To where to keep it. I would say, on handling of any deposits or any distributions of funds, I never made--- one possible exception of reimbursing somebody for a travel expense when there wasn't somebody else to write a check -I would say virtually every decision was made by somebody else, and with regard to the deposits, all those instructions came from Secretary Stans. Senator GURNEY. Well, what were those instructions? You come on board as treasurer and Stans is the fundraiser. Somebody must, have said all cash that comes in we are going to put In a lockbox or a safe. Did anybody say that? When did they said it Who made that decision? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, it goes all The way back to March 1971 and I am not quite sure how it evolved. but it was clearly MY responsibility in terms of preserving the physical security and a record of what was received in cash and what, was not. Senator GURNEY. I understand that. BUT my question really is, who made the decision that cash would be kept in safes and lockboxes and not deposited in bank accounts? Mr. SLOAN. I would have to make an assumption here because I would not make the decision myself. I would suspect that, this procedure evolved back in the period of time because cash was being received then and It has always been handled essentially the same way by Mr. Kalmbach. As to the making deposits out of this, in reviewing periodically the interim reports on cash funds and balance on hand in the office, Secretary Stans often said in the pre-April 7 period, this is too high a balance. we don't need that much. Why don't you deposit $100,000 in $3,000 increments among a number of our committees, and I would follow that instruction Senator GURNEY. Well, now, when he said, this is too much we do not need this much--what did he think he needed the amount that he was keeping in cash for, anyway? Mr. SLOAN. Senator 1 am not sure. He was fully aware that people were drawing on a cash fund. He was fully aware that people did have, authority to come to him. I do not know how he made his estimate of what the appropriate amount available for any one time was. Senator GURNEY. Well, now, may I try 'to reconstruct the testimony As I understand It, from your understanding as the keeper of the money here, you first got the. idea from Kalmbach that cash Money was to be kept either in lockboxes or in safes. Is that right" Mr. SLOAN, I am sure it came from him. the more I think about it, because it was from him that I got the initial instructions on Who should be the signatories on a safe deposit box and a procedure to have more than one signature for access if two people would have to go at any one, time. [01.00.10]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2
Robert MacNeill states that there will also be a discussion with guests Steven Hess, former White House aide, and David Austern, Georgetown University Law School professor. Begins hourly summary of hearings. Shot of caucus room, Attorney Shaffer reading papers; MacNeill continues in voice over. Senator Howard Baker conferring with Senator Sam Dash. Senator Sam Ervin moving to seat, pauses to confer with Senator Dash, takes seat, prepares to gavel.
1983 - LAWMAKERS - Budget Debates
U.S. House Minority Leader, Robert Michel (R-IL) speaking; Paul Duke (o/s) noting that eventually party leaders lost control of their "troops". Speaker of the House of Representative, Tip O'Neill (D-MA) speaking on the House floor, understands the frustrations of the House, but it will pale in comparison to the frustrations of the American people. He implores the House pass a budget to give the people hope. Budget Committee Chairman Jim Jones (D-OK) doesn't think the House will stay paralyzed. He believe the American people are asking for a truce, a reset to begin talking again. Paul Duke agrees and another round of budget committee meetings will prepare for a second round of battles on the House floor. Chairman Jones has suggest to U.S. President Ronald Reagan that the parties split the differences, but the President rejected the idea, still hoping for a conservative budget blueprint. Duke mentions other complications and segues to Cokie Roberts.
Senate Democratic Whip Meeting
U.S. Senate Democratic Whip meeting concerning upcoming House floor vote -- present at meeting include U.S. Senators Al Gore (D-TN), Dick Gephardt (D-MO), and Leslie Aspin (D-WI). Senator Gore discusses letter that will be sent out to Democratic Representatives. Group discusses articles by “Wicker” and the New York Times. Gore discusses House Foreign Affairs Committee, along with U.S. Representatives Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN), Clement J. Zablocki (D-WI), and Joel Pritchard (R-WA). Gore discusses questions he has submitted to the Committee.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 26, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Samuel Dash, attorney. Is it not true, Mr. Dean, that based on the statement you have given this committee that not only did the President express his approval to you on September 15 of your coverup activities leading to an indictment of no one higher than Liddy, but after September 15 the President took an active part in the coverup? Let me very briefly summarize, very briefly, your statements concerning this and please tell me if this is an accurate summary of what you have stated in your long statement. One, after telling the President on September 15 that you could not assure that the coverup would not unravel, it in fact, did begin to unravel in January 1973, when Hunt asked for a promise of Executive clemency. And that you learned from Mr. Ehrlichman in January and from the President himself on March 13, 1973, that the President when apprised of Hunt's pressure authorized giving Hunt assurances concerning Executive clemency. Despite your explicit statement in your meeting, with the President on February 28, 1973, of your culpability for obstruction of justice, the President according to your statement reassured you that you had no legal problems. In your meeting with the President on March 13, when you apprised the President of increasing payoff demands from Mr. Hunt which you estimated would cost as much as $1 million, the President according to your statement, responded that that amount of money would be no problem. And inquired as to how such payment could be made leading to a discussion by you in the presence of the President of laundering money and secret drops. And despite your lengthy explanation to the President when you met with him on March 21 concerning the criminal involvement of various White House and CRP officials including Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Colson, yourself, Mr. Magruder, and the increased demands for payoff money requiring coverup activity on the part of the White House, the President took no affirmative action to end the coverup. And that indeed the President made, according to your statement, specific plans to deal with this Select Committee of the Senate to prevent it from being effective and sought to further the coverup by attempting to have Mr. Mitchell acknowledge his guilt in approving the Liddy plan with the hope that that would satisfy the various investigating bodies. And finally, when you would not continue to participate in the coverup according to your statement, but retained counsel and went to the United States Attorney's office and began to tell what you knew about the Watergate case, the President sought to protect Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman who had been clearly implicated by you and asked that you submit to him a letter of resignation. Is that a fair summarization of your long statement of your meeting you had with the President and the information you had with him? John Dean. Yes, it is.
More Opening Day 98th Congress, 1983
Opening Day 98th Congress. U.S. House Representative and Majority Leader Jim Wright (D-TX) yields to William Dannemeyer (R-CA), who questions possible procedural prohibitions on proposed rule change on appropriations amendments, and if proposed rule changes unfairly hurts the House minority. Wright replies the proposed rule change does nothing to alter previous rule as to what the Rules Committee or whole House can or cannot do, nor does the rule change affect the minority party any more or less than previous rules. The benefits remain with the majority party, as it always has. If the minority party cannot get an amendment through the Committee, it is perfectly fine to try through the whole House, as has always been done. Nothing changes in that aspect.
JFK Assassination HSCA Hearings
House Select Committee on Assassinations hearing on the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Committee Deputy Chief Counsel Gary T. Cornwell continues taking testimony of Professor Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschenasy testimony on acoustic analysis of the Dallas Police audio transmission tape from the assassination. Weiss discusses the equipment used for analyzing the tape: a large survey map of Dealey Plaza, a long graduated scale for measuring map scale, a calculator, and an oscilloscope for measuring wavelengths and plotting.
Lawmakers - February 11, 1982 - Clean Air Act
1981 meeting of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Representative John Dingell (D - Michigan) and Representative Henry Waxman (D - California). Voiceover explains differences between Dingell and Waxman on act.
NPACT coverage of Church Committee Hearings - CIA Director William Colby
DO NOT USE (00:56:22) Back to the tv studio and Duke and Lehrer discuss the with the panel issues of responsibility and supervision of the CIA - Phillips says that the CIA has too often been the tool of the White House and foreign policy and that it will welcome the opportunity to be carry out its operations under congressional supervision - Wise says that congress needs to take the iniative to patrol the CIA and hence forth also start taking some of the reponsibility for its operations (01:00:50) Lehrer closes out the show, mentioning President FORD's statement about possible changes to the CIA and telling the viewers what's to come in tomorrow's testimony
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973
[00.54.18] Senator MONTOYA. Mr. REISNER. are you aware of any plans along these same lines with respect to the conduct of the Demo National Convention in Miami? Mr. REISNER. No, sir. Senator MONTOYA. Now, do you know whether or not Mr. Magruder employed any of the individuals that were engaged in the bugging or trying to disrupt the campaign activities on the part of the Democrats? Mr. REISNER. No, sir. The most accurate--I mean the most information I have ever seen about that has been in the newspaper recently. Senator MONTOYA. Did you know Mr. Segretti? Mr. REISNER. No, sir. Senator MONTOYA. Do you know whether or not he visited CRP headquarters? Mr. REISNER. I don't know. I wouldn't have recognized him. Senator MONTOYA. Now, when you kept the log, did this particular log which you presented to the committee reflect all the appointments that Mr. Magruder had? And can you tell us what other individuals at the White House Mr. Magruder met? Mr. REISNER. Well, sir, to my knowledge, the diary that was kept by My secretary would reflect his schedule accurately. All individuals that he met with, unless he would have just stopped by their office to see them, would be reflected in that calendar. Senator MONTOYA. Did Mr. Magruder meet very frequently with Mr. Liddy in his office or in Mr. Liddy's office? Mr. REISNER. I do not know about Mr. Liddy's office. I do not imagine that he did. It seems to me that he probably met with Mr. Liddy on a number of occasions, but not frequently. Their relationship was not one that--they did not, get along very well. Senator MONTOYA. NOW, it, is my understanding, as has been testified to here, previously that on the evening when you and Mr. Odle decided to take out some secret, files from Mr, Magruder's desk, you took what was known as the advertising file and that you turned over what has been called the strategy file to Mr. Odle to take home with him. That is correct, is it not'? Mr. REISNER. Yes. I took home some things in addition to that. Senator MONTOYA. What else did you take home? Mr. REISNER. I took home--the first thing that I remember taking out of Mr. Magruder 's desk was a document which was the June wave of polling information. There was a wave of polls that was conducted in Me spring. That was the most, sensitive polling information that we had. There was some analysis of that, polling information. There was also a file, a large, thick file that contained the operating plans in the key States that we considered important, following, beginning In July. In addition to that, there was this advertising file. In fact, what that was was not our advertising file concerning the November group at the Committee for the Re-Election of the President advertising; that file concerned the creation of the Democrats for Nixon, which had not at that time been created. Mr. Connally had not returned from his trip and it was very sensitive at that time. Senator MONTOYA. Why- was it, sensitive? Mr. REISNER. Well, I do not, think it was agreed to at that time that Mr. Connally would head the Democrats for Nixon. In addition to that, I know that there were a number of Democrats all over the country who might or might not wish to be supporters of the President. Senator MONTOYA. Was the advertising file such that it contained advertising or plans for advertising, something derogatory against Democratic candidates? Mr. REISNER. No. I believe that all it Contained at that time was-- the Democrats for Nixon did later conduct negative advertising. I Mean it was shown on national television. But at that time, all that that file contained, to my knowledge, was the ad copy for the ad that was going to represent the formation of the Democrats for Nixon. Senator MONTOYA. Up to that time, you did know what was in the Gem file or you knew that there was something very strategic in the Gem file? Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir. All I knew was that Mr. Magruder considered it important. [00.59.01]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.11.24] ****SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD IN RIGHTS SECTION***** Senator MONTOYA. If the Chairman and the members of the committee will permit me to read this into the record and then I will introduce it. [reading] July 28, 1971, Confidential: Memorandum for the Attorney General: Dick Whitney, who is Secretary Stans' political Special Assistant spent some time with me discussing 1972. One idea which he brought up might be useful n other departments. The Secretary has built up a discretionary fund at Commerce that will total approximately $1,000,000. He is using this fund for conferences, hiring, and other activities that will be beneficial to the President's re-election. If you feel it is appropriate, Secretary Stans might discuss this concept with other Cabinet Officers to see fi they can develop the same kind of fund within their own departments. [end of read section] Senator MONTOYA. And then you have a line for "Approved, Disapproved, Comment", and your name appears, "Jeb S. Magruder," and this was your memorandum submitted to Mr. Mitchell. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir, that is correct, sir. Senator MONTOYA. I submit this for the record, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. I believe it is already in there. I am not certain; if it is not, we will put it in as an exhibit. Senator MONTOYA. It was not admitted. Senator ERVIN. Like Senator Montoya. I have a compassionate heart, and I have a great deal of sympathy for thee predicament in which you find yourself. I was very much encouraged by your statement that you are not going to let this keep you from going ahead and living a useful life, and I would recommend to you go get the poem by Walter Malone called "Opportunity" which tells of "Each night I burn the records of the day. At sunrise every soul is born again," and I think it is the most encouraging set of words ever put together by any man. And despite your very unfortunate state at the present time, you have got about the greatest asset that any man can have, you have a wife who stands behind you in the shadows where the sun shines, so I wish you success in your future endeavors. I want to thank you for your testimony, and I presume that if we need to recall you, you will be available on proper notice. Mr. MAGRUDER. Yes, sir, and I thank you for your comment. Senator ERVIN. Since the committee has some internal affairs to deal with on Monday, we will not have a public session on Monday. The net public session will be at 10 o'clock on Tuesday. [00.14.16--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that that is the end of one of the longest and most dramatic days of the four weeks of hearings, with MAGRUDER admitting that he and other high campaign officials took part in the planning and the coverup of Watergate. States that MAGRUDER's testimony points to H.R. HALDEMAN, former White House chief of staff, implicated in the activiites of the CRP by his aide, Gordon STRACHAN, who was the link between HALDEMAN and the CRP. STRACHAN has been added as a witness, reported to be willing to testify that HALDEMAN was in on the plans for WATERGATE all along. States that the hearings will resume on Tuesday with testimony of John DEAN. DEAN, former presidential counsel, likewise has a dramatic story to tell. [00.15.02--guest commentators Alan BARTH and Jack KRAMER] LEHRER introduces the commentators. Asks BARTH for his comments after four weeks of WATERGATE hearings. BARTH states that many people are troubled by the image of American politics being presented to the world by the hearings, and there is a great deal of soul-searching attendant that is vital for the health of self-government, compares to the trials of dealing with civil rights and racial inequalities. It's indisputably clear that the US has a problem that can be dealt with by resolute action and honest self-analysis MacNEILL asks him to define what the problem is BARTH says the problem lies in a devaluation of ethical life of the country, that there is unprecedented laxity where meand are justified by ends. At high levels, even leaving out the President for the moment, the tactics taken to win the election are unconscionable with the way Americans view the national character. [00.18.20]
Capitol Journal - Iceland Summit and Budget
(01:00:00) WETA logo, PBS funding credits (01:00:13) Opens to Capital Journal opening credits and animation (01:00:33) In tv studio Capital Journal hosts HODDING CARTER and STEVE ROBERTS sit before a large monitor on which is displayed a picture of the House floor, Carter explains that it is the end of the term for the 99th Congress (01:01:10) On screen text displays issues that are being reconciled in the last bit of the Congressional term, shots of a joint meeting of the House and Senate, shots of both the House and Senate floors, Senator BOB DOLE makes a joke out of amendment supporting hearing aid compatible phones at an all night Senate session, Senator DENNIS DECONCINI makes a joke about the all night session, various shots of the House and Senate floors (01:04:17) Back in studio Roberts and Carter discuss the huge House and Senate formulated budget, Carter segues to an examination of the Gramm/Rudman/Hollings budget balancing act, at a press conference Senator PHIL GRAMM speaks about his budget balancing bill, on the House floor various Representatives condemn the Gramm/Rudman/Hollings act, on screen text displays the Gramm bill's objectives, shot of the Supreme Court Building, Senator PETE DOMENICI - Senate Budget Committee Chairman and Representative WILLIAM GRAY - House Budget Committee Chairman - speak before the Senate and House about the need to get a budget passed so as to avoid across the board cuts, shots of the Senate and House Budget Committees in session (01:09:43) Carter interviews Senator Gramm, Senator Domenici, and CHARLES SHULTZE of the Brookings Institute in their respective offices - they discuss the new budget and how successful was the implementation of the Gramm/Rudman/Hollings act (01:13:06) Back in studio Roberts and Carter discuss the budget relative to the Gramm/Rudman/Hollings act (01:17:08) Carter segues to U.S.- Soviet Summit at Iceland, good footage of President RONALD REAGAN and Premiere MIKHAIL GORBACHEV descending a staircase outside a summit building - both men in raincoats, Gorbachev wearing a hat - they approach a limosine and Gorbachev says something to Reagan - Reagan holds a grave expression - audio for this footage is from a Reagan televised national address, video for which follows this footage - in this clip from the national address Reagan stresses his belief in peace through strength, Senator Dole at a White House press conference comments of the success of the Iceland Summit, Senator SAM NUNN at same press conference questions Reagan's suggestion of getting rid of all of the U.S.' nuclear missiles, on the House floor Representative MARK SILJANDER condemns criticism of Reagan's stand at the summit, on the House floor Representative EDWARD MARKEY condemns Reagan's hypocrisy, Speaker of the House TIP O'NEILL at a press conference says in a phone call to Reagan he told him that he and the Democrats gave him their unpartisan support (01:20:25) On screen text displays House compromises on the President's summit negotiation objectives, Speaker O'Neill at press conference comments further on Reagan's summit mission, a smiling Secretary of State GEORGE SCHULTZ meets with members of Congress, Senator ALBERT GORE in a Congressional hall and outside in a park condemns the notion that the summit was a success (01:22:20) Back in the studio Carter and Roberts discuss the Reagan's performance at the Iceland summit relative to Congressional support and the upcoming Congressional elections (01:26:50) Carter closes out show, credits roll (01:27:30) PBS funding credits