and it sounded like he wanted to come to our next meeting, which he ultimately did.

Question: Was that the only thing that you talked about with the President about at that time?

Answer: I am sure we talked to him about the plight of the dairy farmer, because we never missed an opportunity to talk to anybody about that. But, I don't remember anything specifically.

Then finally in 2d, a portion of the testimony of Mr. Harold Nelson, and this relates to the conversation on the telephone, his description of the subject matter, and the question about halfway down on page 61 is:

What was the substance of that telephone

Answer: He was expressing his regret at being unable to attend, expressing his awareness of the importance of argriculture to the economy of the United States, and to the health and well-being and that sort of thing.

And he goes on to repeat that the President expressed concern about the wellbeing of agriculture producers, and he wanted to meet with members, that no specific time was set, and that the President wanted to express his regrets at being unable to attend.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. St. Clair?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Might I ask, this is just to make reference to what was called to our attention yesterday. In your reading the statement of Mr. Nelson as to his conversation with the President, I do not know how important this is except to point out the accuracy of your statement of information. You describe it in tab 1 as a courtesy phone call, and then we get language which, in my judgment, of course, while you may call it a courtesy phone call, is a phone call which talks about reassurance and talks about awareness and concern for the well-being of agricultural producers. Now, I do not question the fact that that may not have any significance. I question the description that you place in concluding that this was such a courtesy phone call. Would it not be more appropriate that it was a phone call, and then allude to the information?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly you and the members of the committee are entitled to draw any inferences you want. We felt this was a fair description of it. It may not-you may not agree, and if you do not agree, of course, you will ignore it. If you don't agree, I suggest simply you ignore the suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN. No, I think that what I am trying to say, Mr. St. Clair, is that you are not presenting detailed information, but you are drawing conclusions because you are describing, in my judgment, and as I say I am not going to belabor it, but this crops up in various instances, and I do not know if this is the way you want to present it, by having such conclusions that in my judgment, at least, may not be quite the thing that one would expect of a detailed informational presentation.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Well, it is conclusory in a subordinate sense, of course. And I do not want to belabor the point either, except I would think it would be almost impossible to avoid making a subordinate conclusion from time to time. I do not think that is a critical description, and I would be just as happy to have the committee disregard it. We are simply trying to portray what is an accurate picture supported by the facts, and if this is not so, then the jury is not persuaded on this point. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Well

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Holtzman.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. A question of clarification, Mr. St. Clair. I refer your attention to page 3 of tab 2a and the handwriting underneath the reference to a meeting with Mr. Nelson et al, and there is an asterisk, and some language which says, "See separate," and there is a word that is not completed, "paper from Colson especially,” and I believe the word is contribution. Have you attached that?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. No; I believe this entire documentation I think is in the presentation of the special staff. If I am wrong in that respect, I would be glad to submit it to the committee. We will check with them during a recess.

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. As I said, I only put this in for context as to fixing the time and the circumstances of this meeting, who else was also being pictured that day and the like.

If I may proceed then, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Please proceed.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Tab 2d, we just reviewed that portion of Mr. Nelson's testimony that related to the phone call. Now, on page 63 Mr. Nelson gives his memory with respect to the meeting and his description is somewhat different in context, but in substance, he confirms that it was a sort of a very light meeting. For example, he says just at line 11, he says he, the President:

Once again talked about how he regretted that he couldn't attend the meeting. We talked to him about and invited him to address the next meeting-the next annual meeting, which he did.

Question: And that was the entire

Answer: This was a very brief meeting. I remember he kidded Dave Parr about his build as a former Tennessee football player, and, you know, talked about his interest in sports and that sort of thing. That seems to me that the main point of discussion at that time was we would like for him to attend our next-speak at our next annual meeting.

Question: And was there any discussion at that time of a meeting that would turn out to be the March meeting?

Answer: I don't have an independent recollection, but I would say it would be unusual if we didn't seize that opportunity to tell him that we'd like, at his convenience, to have some dairy leaders in to talk with him.

Tab 3.

Mr. McCAHILL. Harold S. Nelson and David L. Parr have testified that the figures of $1 million and $2 million were tossed around, not that any specific pledge was made. Mr. Parr testified that the figures were used in a jesting manner.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Tab 3 is testimony

Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, a point of clarification.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fish.

Mr. FISH. Is counsel reading from the tab 3 which was in the envelope from the White House, or volume 3 instead of tab 3 which was in the book?

Mr. McCAHILL. Yes, Mr. Fish. Pardon me. Tab 3 which was in your book should be replaced by the one that is in the envelope.

Mr. FISH. Is that true of other things in the envelope, tab 1a, 4, 5a, and 13!

Mr. McCAHILL. Yes. There were some typographical errors and we corrected them.

Mr. FISH. Thank you very much.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Tab 3a is portions of the testimony before the Senate select committee by Mr. Nelson. And on page 82 he was asked by Mr. Weitz: "When you say $2 million or more was discussed at various times, who discussed it? Did you discuss it with some individuals or did you, Mr. Nelson?

"Answer: There would just be amounts that would be thrown out about-" and Mr. Weitz interrupts: "Yes, did you hear those amounts discussed or did you yourself discuss those amounts?"

And Mr. Nelson said: "Ordinarily I would not be the one to mention these amounts."

And Mr. Weitz said: "Who did?

"Answer: Mr. Parr.

"Question: In your presence?

"Answer: He has mentioned those amounts in my presence, yes."

Now, turning to 3b, we have portions of testimony before the Senate select committee again, and now by Mr. Parr, and I think we should probably start at the bottom of page 205. Mr. Parr said: "I just remember a discussion of about a million, and then somebody said two million, and that-" and Mr. Sanders then interrupted and said: "Would the first time that that occurred have been in Mr. Colson's office?

"Answer: Do you mean discussions of that type of nature? "Question: Yes.

"Answer: I just don't know."

Now, continuing down on that portion of page 206 marked in the right hand column, we would call the committee's attention to Mr. Parr's statement.

"In relation to this 1 million and 2 million, I recall that it was said, discussed, and as I recall, it was sort of in a jesting manner. That is the best recollection I can have.

"I have testified that one was mentioned, and then I believe Mr. Colson said this is a $2 million package or some words like that." Tab 4. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. St. Clair, I realize this is partial testimony, but what occasion is this referring to, and who is there besides the milk people, if you can tell us? Who were they talking with or to?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Well, Mr. Colson is present, Mr. Parr and Mr. Nelson is present, and the President is not present.

Mr. DENNIS. And when was this approximately?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. I wonder, sir, if I could inform you on that later. I do not have that.

Mr. DENNIS. Sure. That is perfectly all right. I would just sort of like to know when, and where, and who's involved, and it might have a little more significance.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. I will be happy to.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. St. Clair a question? Mr. DONOHUE [presiding]. Mr. Edwards.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. St. Clair, in the statement, wouldn't it have been more accurate to say Mr. Parr testified that the figures were used in

a jesting manner, Mr. Parr stated that Mr. Colson said this is a $2. million package and some words like that? I am curious why you left that out.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Well, I think it would be proper to include it. At the time this was prepared, we concentrated on the description Mr. Parr made of sort of a jesting manner. I think you are quite right, that it probably would be better to have included it. It certainly is, that material is in the supporting tab which is available to the committee, but I would be inclined to agree with you, Mr. Edwards.

Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Waldie.

Mr. WALDIE. Mr. St. Clair, on tab 3a on page 82, there is something that I do not understand there. Mr. Nelson is responding to Mr. Weitz, and he said, "Well, we did not tell him any specific amount. At various times $1 million or $2 million or even more money was discussed. And had they given us the names of the committees they could have gotten much more money from us."

Who does he refer to with the use of the pronoun "they," and "had they given us the names of the committees they could have gotten much more money from us?" Who is "us," and what in the world are the names of the committees? I don't understand that reference. Mr. ST. CLAIR. I think, Congressman Waldie, that "they" refers to representatives of the Committee to Reelect, or at that time the Republican National Committee, some political organization. And it is my understanding of the situation that mechanically contributions had to be made to committees, and that at this time apparently the Republican organization did not have available the names of the committees to whom the dairy people could, in fact, contribute money. Mr. WALDIE. That would be the $3,000 problem?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. I do not know what the amount is, but that sort of thing, according to my understanding. And apparently Mr. Nelson felt at that time, if they had had more names of more committees they could have, in fact, given more money. And I think the distinction should be drawn about how much, in fact, was given as of that time, as against how much was being contemplated to be given in the future. Mr. WALDIE. So you understood Mr. Nelson to be saying, or do you understand he is saying they could have gotten much more money, and he is relating to much more than a million or two million?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. I think, Sir, that at this point they were talking about how much had been given, and my memory is $50,000, and the million or the two million was prospective as to how much they would pledge in the future. But, my memory of the special presentation is that there was a mechanical problem early in these relationships that this is reflective of.

Mr. WALDIE. Thank you.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Danielson.

Mr. DANIELSON. I have a question of clarification at the same point, page 82 under tab 3a, Mr. St. Clair. Would Mr. St. Clair tell us, the first line refers to several hundred committees as a question, and does counsel have available to him the preceding pages, 81 or 80, which would indicate from whom this list of committees was obtained and how many there were?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Either we do or the special staff does, and I will consult with them and with my staff to see which one of us has it, and I will be glad to submit it.

Mr. DANIELSON. I would appreciate that to give me a little bit better context. Thank you.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. You will observe, sir, this is in a sense repetitive of materials that the special staff presented. We wanted to emphasize one portion of that, but I think it is quite appropriate that you have previous pages if they are available.

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Rangel.

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, a quick review of tab No. 3 would allow the reader to believe that the one and two million was tossed around, were figures that were just used in a jesting manner by all of the parties that are mentioned in the preceding sentence. Now, Mr. Edwards pointed out in Mr. Colson's statement that it is clear that he was not joking, and Mr. Waldie pointed out Mr. Nelson's testimony, and it is clear that there is nothing to indicate that he was joking, especially as it relates to even more money was discussed and more could be available. Would you agree that this tab does not logically follow that, that there is a strong inference that this last sentence Mr. Parr testified that the figures were used in a jesting manner, reflects all of the people that are mentioned in tab 3?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Well, in my view, Sir, if I may respond, that is his testimony being descriptive of a meeting at which he was in attendance. It is for you to give such weight to it as you think appropriate. Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Sarbanes.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. St. Clair, on this tab 3, I understand that it has been replaced in the language, and that "AMPI officials and in conversation with fund raisers," that was in the earlier tab is stricken?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. That is right. I am informed by my associates that the material we had would not necessarily support the reference to AMPI and, therefore, we changed it.

Mr. SARBANES. And could we have another copy? We will need another copy to include in here.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Did we not make the change there?

Mr. SARBANES. Not in mine, at least.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. All right. We will have to make that change. I thank you for calling that to my attention.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Seiberling.

Mr. SEIBERLING. I wonder if Mr. St. Clair could give us the reference to tab 3B, the page that follows page 206, because at the bottom of page 206 Mr. Parr says, "We were constantly discussing what we expected," and there the page ends in the middle of the sentence and it seems to me in order to have it complete, a complete picture as to what he was saving, we ought to have the following page.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Mr. Seiberling, if I may, this is a portion that was presented by the special staff. We sought to call attention to a special portion of it, and I would be glad to consult with them to see if they have the next page, or see if we have in our files the next page.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Well, I think in order to be able to study your presentation completely, it would be helpful.