.Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building
Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I had not seen these before this moment. I notice there is a cover letter dated June 27, 1973, which I have seen now for the first time. It says, "Pursuant to the rules of the committee, there are enclosed herewith questions which we believe would be appropriate to have asked of Mr. Dean. I will say again I have only seen these just now, but from that cover letter it would appear to me that these are questions submitted to be propounded to the witness and not to the committee. I wonder if the chairman might agree with me in view of the cover letter which has been handed me by counsel.
Senator ERVIN. The only thing which misled me was the fact we had two series of questions. One of them. was numbered 1 and 2, and the second series of questions also are numbered I and 2. So I drew the inference from this that the first question and the second question were addressed to the committee. But perhaps I have misconstrued that.
Senator BAKER. I think I would agree with my chairman, who has implied that it would be inappropriate for anyone to address questions to the committee, and if that is in fact the fair intendment of the letter, then I do disagree with it and I would suggest that they be disregarded If, in fact, they are, questions submitted
under rule 25 of the Standing Rules of the Committee to be propounded to the witness, it would seem to me we have a different situation.
Senator ERVIN. I might state these were just handed to me about 1 second before, I read them, and I drew the inference since, the questions -were separated as they were some of them were addressed to the committee rather than the witness. But perhaps I am mistaken in that, but I would say that the only strategy this committee has followed to secure immunity for any witness has been to
pursue the law strictly.
Senator BAKER. I think the chairman is entirely correct, And I think the committee has tracked the provisions of the statute carefully. On one occasion, at least, Mr. Chairman, I recall that, we retraced our steps for fear there might be a technical deficiency in our method of operation. The votes have been unanimous in each case, even though the statute only requires a two-thirds vote in order to request immunity. So I agree with my chairman that, the only strategy this committee has followed is to track the provisions of the available statute law in order to gain the most information we can in order to present it to the Senate.
Mr. DEAN. Mr. Chairman---,
Senator ERVIN. Now, yesterday the witness was asked to produce some exhibits and I just wanted to ask him if he had provided them.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN DEAN III, FORMER COUNSEL TO THE
PRESIDENT ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES N. SHAFFER AND
ROBERT C. McCANDLESS, COUNSELS---Resumed
Mr. DEAN. 'Mr. Chairman the only thing I -wanted to say, the only involvement I had in what you are referring to is I did participate a number of years ago first in the development of that statute, and second, its drafting and its relationship with the Senate in its adoption, but I did take, at that time, in representing the Department of Justice, a far different position that the Attorney General should have the Ability to nullify any request of any committee to grant immunity to any witness, which is
far different from the one Congress accepted ultimately.
Mr. DASH. Now, Mr. Dean, did you bring with you this morning the exhibits that you indicated you had and the committee requested you to bring?
Mr. DEAN. Yes, I did, Mr. Dash.
Mr. DASH. Could you just, submit them and perhaps identify them as you submit them to the, committee?
[00.15.33-DEAN introduces documents on the White House "ENEMIES LIST"]
Mr. DEAN. These are from a file that is entitled "Opponents List, and Political Enemies Project." The first, document in the file, and these are not in an chronological order. is a briefing paper that was prepared for Mr. Haldeman for a meeting with the head of Internal Revenue Service.
The, goal of the briefing paper which was based on material that, was provided to me by Mr. Caulfield who, in turn, got information from friends of his within the
Internal Revenue Service, was to make the, IRS politically responsive to the White House, and I think that the document is self-explanatory. It is not marked
other than the heading, which says "To Accomplish: Make IRS Politically Responsive."
I will mark these. as I--
Mr. DASH. Well, You can mark them following your last exhibit number.
Mr. DEAN. For the sake of the record right now I will call it exhibit A.