Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mr. LEFEVER. Mr. Chairman, you are very compassionate and generous. I can stay, of course, for another 30 or 40 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. Could we then agree that we would finish and complete, let's say, 37 minutes and be completed by a quarter of 8?

Senator CRANSTON. Let's say that we will do our utmost to achieve that, but it depends partly on the length of the answers. Senator Tsongas was seeking a yes or a no answer and the answers were lengthy.

The CHAIRMAN. If we can have as brief a question and as brief an answer as possible, let's aim to finish by a quarter to 8. There is another function that the Secretary of State is giving and I know he would like to have members of the committee over there. Ambassadors from all countries will be there for the annual Secretary's reception and I would like to have the committee represented, but I want to stay until we are finished.

If we could possibly cooperate to that extent it would be appreciated. Senator DODD. Oh, but some of us weren't invited, Mr. Chairman. [General laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. ÓK, at the end of a day like this, I was just suggesting that someone may need a drink.

Let's go right ahead, then. Are you yielding the rest of your time? Fine, then Senator Cranston you are next.

Senator CRANSTON. Let me say first that I was surprised by the radio broadcast that the chairman brought up where you stated that the opposition to you was based on your support for a strong national defense, which is very reminiscent about what you said were the reasons for your brother's opposition to you, and that was clarified to be something else.

Do you actually believe that the Council on Soviet Jewry and other such groups are opposing you because of your views on the national defense? Do you really believe that is the only reason people are opposing you?

Mr. LEFEVER. Senator Cranston, I did not say my opposition was based on people opposing national defense. I never made such a statement.

Senator CRANSTON. Well then, let the record stand on what Senator Percy said.

Mr. LEFEVER. Sir, I said the more strident opposition, and I mentioned one particular group which took that position. The opposition to me is based upon many reasons and there are many motives. I am not a simpleton and I know the diversity and pluralism of opposition and support.

I might say that virtually all the Soviet dissident groups, virtually all the eastern European ethnic groups, the boat people groups, and virtually all Jewish groups are supporting me. I know of only one small Jewish splinter group that has publically opposed me. On the contrary, and among my witnesses were distinguished Jewish leaders. And I might say this just to give a little balance to the record, that the people who have given me the strongest support are those in the world who themselves or their families have suffered most from the deprivation of human rights.

Richard Schifter is my strongest single supporter ontside of this committee. He lost both of his parents in Nazi concentration camps.

He knows of my long record in opposing all forms of genocide and so

on.

It is a great source of comfort to my wife and me that those who have suffered most have given me the strongest support.

Senator CRANSTON. In my previous time of questioning I had not completed, unfortunately, what I wanted to cover on the Nestlé Corp. Did you ever consult with anyone in Nestlé USA, with Nestlé counsel or with any outside agency doing public relations work for Nestlé regarding the advisability, format, or cost of your center distributing a reprint of the Nickel article?

Mr. LEFEVER. I regard that or that type of discussion as entirely ethical or appropriate.

Senator CRANSTON. Did you have any further conversations with Mr. Groner of Nestlé between September 19 and November 21, when Mr. Nickel accepted the contract?

Mr. LEFEVER. I do not recall, but I'll have to consult my chronolgy here. [Pause.]

There is about 50 items to go over. Perhaps I could review and find that out. It is hard for me to review this fine type.

Senator CRANSTON. Well, if you could submit that for the record and state the nature of such discussions it would help.

Mr. LEFEVER. I do not recall-would you repeat the question, sir. Maybe I could find it.

Senator CRANSTON. Did you have any further conversation with Mr. Groner of Nestlé between September 19 and November 21, when Mr. Nickel accepted the contract?

Mr. LEFEVER. We will have to submit that for the record, sir.

Senator CRANSTON. If you would indicate the nature of those discussions it would be helpful.

[The information referred to follows:]

According to the Ethics and Public Policy Center's records there were only two contacts with Mr. Douglas A. Groner of Nestlé and me between September 19 and November 16, 1979. The first was my letter of September 20, 1979 which requested a grant from Nestle "for the general support" of the Center which, "as a part of Georgetown University, is fully tax exempt." This letter made no mention of our contemplated study of the infant formula controversy. In fact, the subject of infant formula was not even raised.

The only other contact was my letter to Mr. Groner of November 16, 1979, informing him that Herman Nickel had agreed orally to do our study on "infant formula in the Third World." (The Nickel-Lefever contract was actually signed by Nickel on November 21, 1979.) In this letter I said: "In his research he will want to be contacting representatives of the producers of infant formula, critics of the formula industry, and U.S. Government representatives concerned with the issue. I hope, therefore, that you will be in a position to assist Mr. Nickel when he calls upon you for advice and information." Similar requests were made to other producers and other interested parties to the infant formula controversy; it is standard Center procedure to contact as many sources as possible in a complex case study.

To understand the specific events in context, I am indicating in summary form the procedures the Center goes though in developing a study for publication. The infant formula study observed all of these procedures and safeguards.

1. A member of the staff or Board of Directors, or another person suggests an interesting topic.

2. The professional Center staff discusses the matter. frequently consulting Board Directors and others. Various hypotheses are formulated and discussed. Persons outside of the Center who might be contacted in the normal course of determining whether to proceed with a topic are private and public citizens

prominent for their knowledge of the topic in question. We also consult gener alists.

3. When a decision is made to consider seriously a study, the Center staff starts to gather material from a variety of sources representing differing points of view and, simultaneously, to find a potential outside researcher-author.

4. When an author is found, the Center gives him the material already gath ered and asks him to develop an outline.

5. When an acceptable outline-one illustrating that the author is considering all relevant facets of the topic-is delivered, the Center negotiates a contract with the author to produce a first draft by an approximate date.

6. Upon receipt of the first draft, the author is paid one-half of his honorarium and submits that draft for critical comment to three outside experts, each having a different perspective. These experts are selected by me as Director of the Center in consultation with my staff and other knowledgeable persons on the basis of their intellectual stature, objectivity, and their critical faculties. The draft is also critically examined by the staff.

7. If the critics generally agree that the manuscript is worth publishing, that is, that the draft is not just well written and organized but also fully explores the subject and competing points of view and observes the "rules of evidence", all critical comments are sent back to the author for a rewrite.

8. When the author returns the manuscript, the staff formally decides whether it meets the high readability and academic standards of the Center. If so, the author receives the second half of his honorarium and the manuscript is given to the Center's editor. After the editing is complete, the edited manuscript is reviewed by the author to assure that no views of the author were inadvertently changed.

Senator CRANSTON. Did you discuss whether Mr. Nickel would be a good person to conduct such a study?

Mr. LEFEVER. My recollection, Senator Cranston, is I probably wrote a letter to Nestlé and to other people that we had found a first-class, highly critical, and independent writer for the study, but I certainly never asked or implied approval from the Nestlé Corp. We do not do that.

Senator CRANSTON. That latter discussion was presumably after November 21, when the contract was agreed to?

Mr. LEFEVER. I would assume so. We are not in the habit of asking our contributors to approve our authors. It runs contrary to our ethical code, which says we must have full control over our research and publication program and the selection of our authors.

Senator CRANSTON. The title of the Nickel paper was changed in your reprint from "The Corporation Haters" to "The Crusade Against Corporation: The Churches and the Nestlé Boycott." Why was the title changed?

Mr. LEFEVER. I felt "The Corporation Haters" was a little bit incendiary and inappropriate and I thought our new title was more accurate and more moderate.

Senator CRANSTON. Did you consult with or were you contacted by any Nestlé official representative or counsel concerning the advisability of such a change?

Mr. LEFEVER. I made the change on my own. It was my decision and my staff's decision because I thought it would be a better title.

Senator CRANSTON. You didn't really respond to my question, though. Did you consult with Nestlé on the change?

Mr. LEFEVER. I do not recall discussing that change with Nestlé. Senator CRANSTON. After the Fortune article appeared in the June 16, 1981, issue, did you have any conversation with Mr. Nickel about his going forward with his study as originally planned?

Mr. LEFEVER. Yes, indeed.

Senator CRANSTON. Why was the study abandoned, to your knowledge?

Mr. LEFEVER. He told me repeatedly that the study was postponed because of the bicycle accident which required considerable medical attention and two unexpected trips abroad. And until May 28 of this year I assumed he was going ahead with the study.

Then I first learned that he did not plan to go ahead with this study. Senator CRANSTON. You wanted him to go ahead with it?

Mr. LEFEVER. Of course.

Senator CRANSTON. Despite the fact

Mr. LEFEVER. Of course. He is an excellent researcher. It is a good study and it will help inform the American people. I am very proud of his article and I am proud of my article in the Wall Street Journal on this subject. And I think I would be equally proud of a book we produced.

We are men of integrity. We sift the facts and we come to plausible conclusions. I am very proud of the work of the center.

Senator CRANSTON. In your previous testimony before the committee you indicated only vague knowledge of Mr. Ward and his legal practice. Specifically, you stated, "I think he is a kind of freelance lawyer. I don't know him very well." You have now corrected the record on that, specifically referring to him as the Nestlé counsel. When did you last speak with Mr. Ward?

Mr. LEFEVER. I think I spoke with him within the last 2 weeks.
Senator CRANSTON. Did you discuss these hearings with him?
Mr. LEFEVER. Yes, I have.

Senator CRANSTON. Could you fill us in on the nature of those discussions?

Mr. LEFEVER. One of the key things was to ascertain when we first met, trying to get the chronology straight. And I think that was the chief subject of the discussion. It was a brief telephone call. I have not seen him recently.

Senator CRANSTON. Did you have any meeting with him or with any Nestlé official in the summer of 1980 to discuss issues regarding Nestlé and the infant formula question?

Mr. LEFEVER. The summer of 1980? Yes.

On August 1, I hosted a dinner at the Cosmos Club, including one of our authors, a representative of the Chase Manhattan Bank, whom I was trying to induce to become a staff member, and various other people.

And after the dinner was set up I learned at the last minute from Mr. Ward that he was available and I invited him. It was a fortuitous circumstance.

Senator CRANSTON. Were people from Nestlé there other than Mr. Ward?

Mr. LEFEVER. Yes; Mr. Saunders was there, and that was the fortuitous element. And I think the day before the dinner was already set up I got a call from Mr. Ward, who said, "Saunders is in town." And I said, "You're in luck. I'm having a dinner. Why don't you two join us?"

The primary purpose of the dinner was to introduce a potential staff member to friends of the center.

Senator CRANSTON. Was Mr. Jaffa there?

Mr. LEFEVER. We are talking about the August 1 dinner? Senator CRANSTON. Have you ever met or spoken with Michael Grow?

Mr. LEFEVER. I don't recognize the name, sir.

Senator CRANSTON. Well, it is Ward & Grow, the law firm.

Mr. LEFEVER. I have no recollection of having met the gentleman. · Senator CRANSTON. I believe it was actually Ward & Grow that made the two $5,000 contributions to the Ethics and Public Policy Center, was it not? Was it Mr. Ward himself or was it from the firm? Mr. LEFEVER. I assume it was from Mr. Ward as an individual because, as I recall, Mr. Ward signed the checks.

Senator CRANSTON. When were the contributions made?

Mr. LEFEVER. On September 30, 1980, we received a $5,000 contribution from Mr. Ward, who assured me that it was a personal contribution. I asked him about that and on November 14 we received a second personal contribution from Mr. Ward.

These were in response to repeated suggestions that he contribute to the center because of his strong interest and the reference I made earlier to his saying he had had a very good year.

Senator CRANSTON. Would you check your records for the record to find out whether it was a contribution from the firm or from Mr. Ward personally? A partner can sign a check. That could be from the firm as well as, alternatively, being a personal check.

If it is possible to do that, would you please do that?

Mr. LEFEVER. Is that possible?

Ms. WARREN. Yes, it is.

Mr. LEFEVER. I have never questioned a check that we have received to support the center.

Senator CRANSTON. Well, it would be of interest to us if you could clarify whether it was a firm or individual check; it would be appreciated.

Mr. LEFEVER. I will look into that and, subject to laws and the confidentiality I owe to my contributors

Senator CRANSTON. How was the check delivered to the center? Mr. LEFEVER. There were two checks and as I recall, they were received in the mail.

Senator CRANSTON. Do you know why the contribution was made? Mr. LEFEVER. The stated purpose in the accompanying letter was for general support of the center.

Senator CRANSTON. Why was it in two $5,000 checks?

Mr. LEFEVER. I have no idea. I suggest that you address that question to Mr. Ward.

Senator CRANSTON. We may want to. Before the two $5,000 contributions were made to the center, was the amount of the contribution discussed?

Mr. LEFEVER. It was not, not to my recollection.

Senator CRANSTON. Was there any discussion with Mr. Ward of the cost of reprinting and distributing the Nickel article at that time? Mr. LEFEVER. Not to my knowledge.

Senator CRANSTON. Did you ever discuss with him or anyone at Nestlé the source of the funds for the two contributions?

« AnteriorContinuar »