Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains White House press releases of press conference held by Representative Gerald Ford and Senator Hugh Scott.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
12130730
label
Joint Press Releases Senate-House Republican Leadership, 1971-1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12130730
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Joint Press Releases Senate-House Republican Leadership, 1971-1972
description
This file contains White House press releases of press conference held by Representative Gerald Ford and Senator Hugh Scott.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Chronological Files
subjects
Republican National Committee (U.S.)
U.S. House of Representatives. 3/4/1789-
U.S. Senate. 3/4/1789-
Republican Party (U.S. : 1854- )
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12130730
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1972-09-30
month
9
year
1972
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1971-01-01
month
1
year
1971
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
9db40bf3e6a309e2
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D5, folder "Joint Press Releases Senate-House
Republican Leadership, 1971-1972" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D5 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JANUARY 25, 1971
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
10:20 A.M. EST
MR. ZIEGLER: The meeting this morning, which lasted
from 8 o'clock until 10 o'clock, was the first meeting of
the Republican Leadership in the 92nd Congress.
As you know, the President held a bipartisan
leadership meeting on Saturday. But this was the first
Republican Leadership meeting to be held in this session.
Senator Scott and Congressman Ford are here to give
you a rundown on that meeting.
Senator Scott.
SENATOR SCOTT: The President this morning, in
summarizing the goals, the six important goals in his State
of the Union Message, expressed the hope and desire that this
Congress would give a hearing and a vote on all of these
matters. And the President, the Vice President, Cabinet
Officers, and various Republican Members of Congress will,
or course, be explaining this program in many places in many
parts of the country in speeches during the forthcoming
months.
It is important, it seems to me, that all of these
goals be supported in a bipartisan sense by the Congress.
This is bold and daring and this is a new American
revolution in its concept. It has struck a very favorable
note in my opinion in the press and I hope that as the program
is more fully explained and details developed in numerous
meetings to be held here in the White House, for example,
that public opinion will rally to this chance for a new order
of things in Government.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would simply supplement what
Senator Scott has said by saying that the President considers
the total package of six proposals all equally important.
And he believes, and I certainly subscribe and I think there
is unanimity among the Leadership, that the Congress this year
and next year has a great opportunity for the title of an
action Congress, action in welfare, in full employment,
budgetary action, in health, in environment, in reorganization,
and in revenue-sharing.
MORE
- 2 -
These are basic improvements in the overall picture,
both structurally as well as substantively, and the Congress
can and I hope will be known as an action Congress in
1971 and 1972. And this is the whole thrust of the proposed
visits of the President around the country, the Vice
President in various areas of the country, and the efforts
that will be made by those of us in the Leadership in
selling this program to the American people.
Q
Could you tell us any more details about the
President's plans to sell this to the people?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion of where
he would go or how many visits he would make around the
country, but, as you may have noticed in the morning paper
here in Washington today, the Vice President in conjunction
with one organization of local government is going to make
at least four appearances specifically. I think this is
an indication of the attitude of the President and the Vice
President to sell the program to the American people.
SENATOR SCOTT: And, as you know, there are meetings
at 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock today with bipartisan leadership of
the House and Senate. There are meetings set regularly now
with the Chairmen and ranking members of the Committees.
There will be a great deal of elucidation to the pecple's
representatives in the first instance so that the program
will be pretty well understood by the time the specific
legislation comes up in the near future.
Q What will be the first message and what do you
mean the meetings are set regularly? You mean Committee
Chairmen are going to meet with the President every week?
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't believe there is a formal
arrangement of that kind, but they are beginning with
meetings promptly, this very week, as you know.
And the President's message tomorrow will, I believe,
be something of a wrap-up of uncompleted legislation -- isn't
that Right, Ron? -- from the 91st Congress. This is what
I called the "wish list" last time, and I think this time
the action list.
Q
Then you won't have to resubmit the Welfare
Reform?
SENATOR SCOTT: My understanding is that that is
pending. It will be H. R. 1, introduced by Representative
Byrnes.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It has been introduced, I under-
stand, by both Chairman Mills and by Representative Byrnes.
It was given the designation of H. R. 1. I am told hearings
will be held, those that are necessary, in the House Ways
and Means Committee at a very early date as soon as the
House Committee or Committees are established.
Q
Is that tied to the Social Security?
MORE
- 3 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I can't tell you off-hand
whether the two are included in H. R. 1, but my general
impression is that it is put together in that particular
bill.
Q
Is that good or bad?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it is good.
Q
Mr. Ford, there is real skepticism, apparently,
among some powerful members of Congress particularly about
the revenue-sharing and the Government reorganization proposals
of the President. How do you see the outcome?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I am optimistic about this
Congress acting affirmatively on both revenue-sharing and
the Governmental reorganization. There is a great ground
swell throughout the country with local officials and State
officials for action on revenue-sharing. I think this will
be effective in getting the Congress not only to hold early
hearings but I hope affirmative action.
Of course, the reorganization program will take
a little longer, but obviously we cannot go on in the
future with a governmental structure that has not necessarily
done a good job in the past. And I believe that the
proposed reorganization will strike a responsive cord with
the American people and this Congress, I think in the final
analysis, will act affirmatively.
Q
Senator Scott, what do you think are the
realistic prospects for those two proposals?
SENATOR SCOTT: I share Jerry's feeling that during
the course of this 92nd Congress that action should be had
and I think there is a very good chance that it will be had.
It is natural at the beginning that there are many points of
view heard, as you referred to skepticism. In my opinion,
the President is entitled to hearings and the country, the
people, are entitled to hearings and are entitled to decisive
votes on all of these matters. And I believe it will be
the bipartisan position of the Congress to provide that;
and if it is provided, there is a strong pulse within the
nation for the achievement of these better things.
Q
Congressman Ford, the key Committee on
revenue-sharing, I assume, is going to be Mr. Mills' Committee,
which the ranking Republican is Mr. Byrnes. Both of these
men have indicated they are opposed to revenue-sharing. How
are you going to get it out of Committee?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I understand it, President
Nixon is meeting both with Chairman Mills and with Congressman
Byrnes this morning to discuss with them the need and some of
the details of the program.
I am confident that that Committee, which is a
very responsible Committee in the House, will hold hearings
on revenue-sharing. And when the case is made before that
Committee and with the ground swell of public opinion back
of it, I have great optimism that revenue-sharing will
come out of the Committee on Ways and Means and will pass the
House of Representatives.
MORE
- 4 -
Q
After this "wish list" message, which is
coming down in a day or two, what is the schedule then -- as
you referred to it, the action list or whatever you want to
call it?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I believe that the next one is
revenue-sharing. The ones that will follow after that,
and I can't give you the precise dates, will be health,
environment; of course, the budget which is the full employment,
non-inflationary budget proposal, will come up on Friday.
So that is five of the six on the basis that Welfare
Reform is already before the Congress. So the only one
that is not coming immediately, but is coming shortly, is
the one on reorganization of the Government.
Q
April?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We hope it will be earlier and
the pressure is to get it up earlier, and I trust that it can
be before the Congress prior to that time.
Q
Congressman Ford, in what form will the bill
come out of House Ways and Means Committee on revenue-sharing?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it will come out in the
final analysis much like the one that will be submitted.
But I think that will be determined on the basis of the
presentation by the Administration, the views of the Governors,
and the views of the local officials. But the basic
thrust of the President's program will be contained in the
version that will come before the House.
Q
In the list tomorrow, will it be all the
bills that were not acted on the last time?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I understand it, it will be
a good portion or at least the major ones that were not
acted affirmatively on by the Congress in the last session.
Q But would it not include revenue-sharing
and Welfare Reform?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, they will be separated
because they are a part of the President's new legislative
package for 1971 and 1972.
Q How extensively will the President travel
and do you know when he will start?
MR. ZIEGLER: There has been no final determination
as to what extent the President will travel. I think the
point that the President was making this morning and the
point the Leaders are making is that it is important for
the Congress, who has to act on this new program, to have
complete and full details and that is why the briefings are
taking place throughout this week and will continue.
MORE
- 5 -
It is also extremely important that the American
people understand the scope of these proposals, and that is why
the President will hold, as Congressman Ford referred to, a
series of regional briefings in the coming months. We have
not determined the dates or where those briefings will be held.
But they will be somewhat similar to the sessions
which the President has held from time to time to discuss
foreign policy with the various news media executives and
personnel in various parts of the country.
As soon as these details are firm, we will give
them to you.
MORE
- 6 -
Q
When will the Vice President start his meetings
with the public on SST?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I haven't seen any public
announcement of that. I did see the announcement in the paper
this morning of the regional meetings that are aimed at working with
local officials on the revenue-sharing program. But I have not
seen the schedule on the SST.
Q What are these meetings throughout the week
that you keep referring to?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There is a meeting this afternoon
with the bipartisan leadership on the program ---
Q
You mean a Presidential meeting?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It is with George Shultz and with the
others who have specific jurisdiction over the programs that were
in the six-package program of the President, starting, I think
it is tomorrow or Wednesday. There will be breakfasts with
Republican members of the House of Representatives and,as I
understand it, there will be other meetings with a bipartisan
group, committee chairmen and ranking Republicans over the next
week or ten days.
Q
Are these with the President or with somebody else?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Some will be with the President and
some will just be with George Shultz and the others who have specific
responsibility for the implementation of the program.
Q
Will the one this afternoon be with the President?
CONGRESMAN FORD: The one this afternoon, I believe,
is at 2 o'clock with the Senators and at 4 o'clock with the
House Leadership.
Q
Mr. Ford or Senator Scott, I believe some of
the questioning in Congress about revenue sharing is as to whether
the other levels of government can really spend the money wisely and
also the fact that the Federal Government needs some money.
How do you answer such questions?
SENATOR SCOTT: Everybody needs the money. That
is the first answer. The second answer, the Federal Government
has the broader tax base, that States and municipalities are
right up against situations, up against the wall, in fact, fiscally.
And there will be some general revenue sharing and then there
will be a series of specific proposals in addition to that and
these will be designed to provide a somewhat more equitable
distribution of the revenue than the present unequal tax base
permits.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I believe if you look at the budget
that will come up on Friday, you will see that under the full
employment budget, the Federal Government can sustain the $5
billion proposed for Fiscal '72 in revenue sharing, and $10
billion in the broader area of funds for States and local
MORE
- 7 -
communities aside from revenue sharing, plus the $1 billion with
some readjustments in categorical grants.
The Federal Government in Fiscal '72 can sustain that
financial burden to a better degree than State and local
governments in the comparable period of time.
Q
If there are no strings attached to this
$5 billion revenue-sharing money the President is recommending,
do you think that the States and the counties and the
cities can be counted upon as spending it wisely?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I am absolutely confident that the
locally-elected officials or the State-elected officials can
use that $5 billion in a proper assessment of their priorities.
I think their judgment on these matters is infinitely
better than some of the decisions that are made by the bureaucracy
in Washington.
And, if over a period of time these local officials
and State officials don't use that money wisely, the people at
those levels will make changes in their various officials.
SENATOR SCOTT: The President made that point very
strongly in the State of the Union Message. It is also a
Republican promise being kept. It was in the '68 platform
and in the modified form with reference to block grants, I
believe, in the '64 platform.
Q
Is this program of general revenue sharing, this
$5 billion, conceived of as a permanent program or is this a
temporary program in this year when we need an expansionary
budget?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: In my judgment, from listening to
the presentation, it is a permanent program that will grow as
our nation grows and as the tax revenues from our progressive
income tax makes more money available.
I have forgotten exactly the figure. But by 1980, I
think it would grow to approximately $10 billion a year on the
basis of the anticipated Federal revenues and the anticipated share
that would be returned to the States and local governments.
Q
Mr. Ford, is this about the first time we have
had the President and the House leaders going back to the
people to present the programs in Congress?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: This may be a new way of doing it,
but I think the leadership in the House and the Senate over
a period of years have gone out and sought to sell the President's
programs.
His approach may be broader and more active, but I
think the need is fully justifying the expanded effort.
Q
Did he indicate to you that this would be just the
press or would it be sort of like town meetings on a regional
basis or what?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We didn't get into that detail.
MORE
- 8 -
Q
What time is the President seeing Representative
Mills?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I believe that the President is
meeting with Mr. Mills and Mr. Byrnes at the present time.
Q
Did the President, Mr. Ford, confirm the budget
figure of $229.2 billion?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion of that
figure.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:37 A.M. EST)
GD
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 9, 1971
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:23 A.M.
EST
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership Meeting this morning
lasted from eight o'clock until 10 o'clock.
Senator Scott and Congressman Ford are here to
give you a briefing on this. Senator?
SENATOR SCOTT: We had a briefing on Laos and
on the forthcoming General Health legislation from Secretary
Richardson.
The purpose of the action of the ARVN in Laos is
certainly well-known. And the interdiction of the Ho Chi
Minh Trail and tributaries to it is proceeding. After all,
over the past six years, some 630,000 troops have come down
that Trail, 400,000 weapons, other than rifles, and some
400 million rounds of ammunition.
Therefore, the attempt to deter this flow of
supplies is extremely important in aid of the Vietnamization
program and to protect the continuing withdrawal of American
forces.
I would like to note that the criticisms of each of
the decisions made by this Administration in regard to Indo-
china have fallen of their own weight. I think the steam is
out of a good deal of that criticism for the simple reason
that what the President has said on each occasion he will do
has indeed been done and if there is any lack of credibility,
it is on the doom-sayers who predicted results contrary to
those which have occurred.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would simply comment on the
health discussion that there was a very free give-and-take
between the Secretary of HEW and those who were there.
We made suggestions and some observations which I
think will be cranked into the final decision-making.
Secondly, on the briefing related to the incursion
into Laos, it was pointed out, and I think it ought to be
repeated throughout the country, that the decision relating to
Cambodia last year resulted in the cutting of the supply
lifeline for the North Vietnamese in the southern part of
Vietnam.
And this operation will be the cutting of a lifeline
from the north. The operation in Cambodia last year had the
FORD
effect of a substantial drop in American casualties over the
LIBRARY
MORE
- 2 -
last nine months or more.
And the success of this operation will result in,
I believe, a reduction in the military capability of the
enemy and a reduction in American casualties.
Q
Congressman Ford, there is another supply
source in North Vietnam. Was there any discussion about
going after that?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion of any
other military operations other than the ones that are
currently in operation.
Q
Was there any indication of how long the
current operation will continue?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion of any
terminal date. We are just in the initial stages of it.
I suspect that the length of it will depend upon the kind of
resistance that is met as far as the enemy is concerned and
the need to mop up, if it is as successful as we hope it will
be. But there was no discussion of precise days or weeks.
Q Could you explain the timing of this operation?
Why, if this has been going on for so long, did the President
decide now to undertake the operation?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion of that.
As I am sure all of you know, this is a very major
operation for the South Vietnamese military forces. And I
suspect that the timing did relate to the competence of them
to undertake such an operation, plus the need and necessity
to get it done prior to the end of the dry season and the
beginning of the monsoon season.
I might make one observation that I don't think
is generally known. I am told that approximately 30 Members
of the House and the Senate, including all of the leadership,
were briefed prior to the operation, its beginning. So there
was consultation and there was a briefing for those that do
have certain specific responsibilities in the Congress.
SENATOR SCOTT: There were more than two dozen
Members of Congress who were briefed and consulted prior to
the operation.
The purpose of the operation, to repeat, is to aid
in the continuing Vietnamization program and to protect
withdrawal of American forces. And I might suggest that
if you will go back in your records, you will find that
the President in the period between 1965 and 1967, frequently
pointed out to a previous Administration the importance of
cleaning out sanctuaries and supply depots.
Q Senator, when you say the beginning of the
operation, do you mean the beginning of the airlift and
the imposition of the blackout or are you speaking of the
actual crossing of the border?
MORE
- 3 -
SENATOR SCOTT: They are all related. As you know,
the news embargo was at the request of General Abrams for
the protection of our forces. The military operation, of
course, began in, I should say a technical sense, at the
crossing of the border on Route 9.
Q
When were the Congressmen briefed?
SENATOR SCOTT: They were briefed prior to the
military operation, prior to the crossing of the border.
Q
What date were they briefed?
SENATOR SCOTT: There are different dates. I heard
Gerry say that he was briefed at one time on a Thursday. I had
some earlier information and I was finally briefed on Sunday.
But it was at varying times for different Senators and
Congressmen.
Q
Was the opinion of the lawmakers sought or
was it a typical Johnson briefing where they were told?
SENATOR SCOTT: You don't get typical Johnson --
you don't get that kind anymore. (Laughter.) I would say
that when a military operation is in progress you don't ask
Senators how to conduct the battle of Vicksburg. But you do
tell them what is going on and you do respond to their
questions or their concerns or their problems.
Q
So nothing catastrophic has been suggested,
really?
SENATOR SCOTT: It hasn't happened. And I assume
that if something of a catastrophic nature had been suggested,
that might have affected the outcome. But I see no evidence
that that occurred.
Q
Were there any Congressmen who suggested it
might not be a good operation to undertake?
SENATOR SCOTT: That I am not in a position to say
since they were in individual briefings. I will point out
to you that Senator Church said on Sunday that the Cooper-
Church inhibitions were being observed and pointed to the line
that barred the forward movement of U. S. personnel.
Q
You point out, Senator Scott, that in an
earlier period Mr. Nixon had advocated the cleaning out of
sanctuaries in Indocina. Did the impetus for this operation
in Laos come from Washington or did it come from Saigon?
SENATOR SCOTT: That I am not in a position to say.
You had better ask that of someone else.
Ω
Was there any indication of when the health
message will go to the Hill, Congressman Ford?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no specific date
indicated. I would say generally sometime prior to the first
of March. But nothing any more firm than that.
Q
Were Senators Fulbright and Mansfield consulted?
MORE
- 4 -
SENATOR SCOTT: They were both, and Senators
Cooper, Church and Aiken, Senator Smith and a number of
others, including the Democratic side.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I understand that the Speaker
was also briefed as well as other Members in the leadership
on the House side.
Q
Congressman Ford, why were not the Members
of the House and Senate briefed before the logistical part
of the operation started?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think you had to bear in
mind the major part of the operation, the part that was
most serious. The part that was most serious was the one
involving the crossing of the border. And at the time of
the logistic buildup, I am not positive personally that
there was a firm decision as to exactly the date and the
precise movements.
But as far as I was concerned, I was briefed on
a Thursday because I was going to be out of town on Friday
and Saturday. And I had so informed the White House and it
was decided to give me that briefing at that time because
of that problem.
Q
I don't mean to pursue this unnecessarily.
But I believe Senator Scott mentioned something about
credibility and apparently most of the criticism that arose
during that six-day period was because no one knew exactly
what was going on, at least, the leadership here in
Washington.
What is your response to that, Senator?
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't think that that goes to the
issue of credibility. A buildup of logistics and supplies
is not a matter which is essential for the Congress to
know until some action is about to be taken that affects our
disposition of forces, for example.
The news embargo is not all that unusual. There
was an 18-day news embargo at the time of the A Shau Valley
enterprise. I personally am in favor of news embargoes
that protect lives. And I can realize the necessity for the
people of this country being informed as soon as they can be.
I think the right to know is a little different
from the right to jeopardize.
Q
Senator Scott, you indicate the lack
of public outcry, including public and on the Hill.
Was that a determining factor for the President to go in?
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't think SO. I think the
lack of public outcry followed the entry into Laos of ARVN
forces. The lack of public outcry, I think, comes from
an increasing confidence in the President's undertakings.
When he says something is going to happen, it does. And
the critics are finding out that he is keeping his promises.
And I think that explains the lack of public outcry, plus,
of course, the reforms of the draft.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Senator, there are two moves on the Hill
right now, one to reopen Senate Foreign Relations Committee
hearings on Laos, public hearings; and two, move toward
some resolution which would prohibit the use of any more
appropriations in Indochina except to get us out of the war.
What is the Administration's position on both of
those moves?
SENATOR SCOTT: Would you repeat the first part?
Q
To open up Senate Foreign Relations Committee
hearings on Laos.
SENATOR SCOTT: The decision of whether or not
Cabinet officers are to testify is, of course, for the
President and the Cabinet officers, as far as open sessions
are concerned. Secretary Rogers is testifying this morning
currently before Foreign Relations. The second part was?
Q
On the proposal to restrict the use of funds
to anything but to get out of Indochina.
SENATOR SCOTT: I think that would transfer the
executive function to the Congress. I personally question
very seriously whether it would be constitutional for
the Congress to control the Commander in Chief's position
of forces for the defense and security of the United States.
But aside from that, I think it would be the height
of folly to use the power of the purse to endanger the
removal of troops from a foreign enterprise.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: If I might add to that, I don't
think this suggestion is anything new. In effect, that is
what some people were trying to do in 1970 and they were
conspicuously unsuccessful in the House of Representatives
last year and I think they will be just as unsuccessful in
1971.
Most Members of the House realize that they are
not capable of making military decisions and the suggestion --
SENATOR SCOTT: And some Senators.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: -- and the amendment or the
action that you have mentioned would in effect be substituting
political decisions for a military decision. The House of
Representatives knows that the President has kept his word
about withdrawing troops.
The Members of the House or majority recognize
that the operation in Cambodia was successful and certain
beneficial results have taken place.
MORE
- 6 -
And I am confident that they will find the same in
this particular case. It will be successful. It will
insure that we will be able to make or at least open the
door to additional withdrawals beyond the 284,000 that are
scheduled to be there on May 1 of 1971.
Q
Hasn't the President also said he wouldn't
widen the war and isn't putting South Vietnamese on three
fronts widening the war?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't think so at all. The
action that is being taken by the South Vietnamese forces into
Laos is to protect the U.S. forces and the South Vietnamese
forces. It is a legitimate extension for the protection of
the some 335,000 U.S. military personnel still there and
half a million or more South Vietnamese forces that are
protecting their country.
This is a legitimate military operation as a defense
move, not as an offensive action.
SENATOR SCOTT: The North Vietnamese have been
on three fronts all along, except for too long two of the
three fronts have been privileged.
Q
What did you say about further withdrawals?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I said yesterday, and I said
here today, that the success of the operation will certainly
open the door to the distinct possibility of an extension
of withdrawals beyond the figure of May 1 of 284,000.
But there is no committment at all.
It is simply an operation that in my personal
opinion will definitely give the President more options than
he would have had otherwise.
Q
Was your personal opinion reenforced in there
today?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: My personal opinion was reenforced by
what was said in my briefing last Thursday and what I
heard this morning. I am definitely encouraged.
Q
Has anyone in the Administration said that if
the thing is a success that they might be able to better
the number of troops they are planning to have out by mid-May?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No. My own impression is what I
have indicated. But I have gotten no specific views from
the Administration, as such.
Q
In the last two or three days, a group of
students met at the University of Michigan, a meeting I
am sure you are aware of, to discuss plans for large anti-
war demonstrations here in Washington in May.
Do you believe that there is still enough steam
left in the anti-war movement to mount large demonstrations
here in Washington?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I am not certain that we can
look forward to college campuses being entirely peaceful
MORE
- 7 -
this spring. But I didn't see much publicity coming out
of that meeting in Detroit or at the University of Michigan.
I don't think they are the ones that are going to be
able to generate the kind of student activity that took
place during the Cambodian incursion.
Furthermore, as we progress in the withdrawal
of forces and as casualties go down and as the success of
this particular military operation is proven, I think most
students will realize that we are on the right track and
they don't have to meet and protest as they did a year ago.
Q
Can we move to health for a minute? Did
you get the impression at all that the decisions are made
on the Administration's health package?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No. I thought I made that quite
clear, that there was some give and take between the
Congressional people there and the Secretary of HEW. It
was to a substantial degree a consulting session where he
indicated some basic concepts and asked for our observations
and comment.
Q
What is the problem?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it is better if we
wait until the final solution rather than to talk about
alternatives at this point.
Q
Did the President say this morning anything
about his plans to take his program to the country?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The President did say quite
specifically that he was going to really reenforce the
efforts that have been made already for revenue-sharing, et
cetera, and the other five points in the State of the
Union Message.
As I understand it, he is having now a series of
breakfasts for the Democrats in the Congress to make sure that
they understand that this is a substantive action rather than
any political move.
And I might say that the revenue-sharing bill is
going to be introduced in the House and I guess in the Senate
today. And we have, I think, an excellent number of
individuals who are going to co-sponsor it.
In the House, it is 135 at this point.
SENATOR SCOTT: It is 37 in the Senate; some from
each Body.
Q
What do you mean by "reenforce" this action?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: By the series of meetings with
Democrats, and there are other efforts that are going to be made
by those of us in the leadership throughout the country.
And I think you are going to get some bipartisan
support from the bill.
MORE
- 8 -
Q
What are the efforts?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The Vice President held a meeting
in Indianapolis, as I understand, over the last weekend
where lots of local officials were present. Every speech
that I think a Republican is going to be giving in the
next few months will include an affirmative sales job
for revenue sharing and the other programs.
This is going to be a very substantial effort
on the part of the President and others.
Q
Did you discuss the Mayors testimony yesterday
on the Hill on revenue sharing and particularly their
resentment on the pollution timetable?
SENATOR SCOTT: It was not brought up in this
meeting today at all.
Q
Senator Scott, I would like to ask you about
Laos again.
Any military planner that is worth his salt considers
what his option will be in event things take a turn for
the worse.
At this morning's meeting was the President
asked about, or did he comment, on what he can do if the
South Vietnamese get licked in Laos?
SENATOR SCOTT: It was indicated that General
Abrams knows what he is doing. It was not indicated as to
what alternatives exist. I have no doubt that a good general
always knows what he should do under situations favorable
or adverse. But we did not anticipate defeat.
And it is not, I believe, the custom of the
Administration to anticipate defeat.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:45 A.M. EST)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 23, 1971
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD F. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:23 A.M. EST
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership met for a little
over two hours this morning with the President.
Senator Scott and Congressman Ford are here to
give you a report on the meeting. We will begin this
morning with Senator Scott.
Senator.
SENATOR SCOTT: The Secretary of Transportation
spoke on the SST and then the President spoke for at least
15 minutes with great emphasis and great determination,
an expression of his strong belief in the necessity for
proceeding with this important and dramatic breakthrough.
He feels that this country must not evidence that it has
lost the feel for greatness, its willingness to proceed
with innovation, its willingness to maintain one of its
great industries and mentioned that we had at times lost
ground with some other industries, as in electronics,
that we should not do this with the aircraft industry,
that he had utter confidence that with the strict limitation
of this program to two prototypes only with the reduction
in the decibal figure to an amount lower than those
exhibited by current planes in many instances from 116
to 108, that the need for the program, he felt, was
evident, that the ecological aspects were taken care of
by the assurances contained in the research program.
Secretary Connally spoke on it and said that
in his view it would be unbelievable for the country
to refuse to go ahead with a program which so strongly
affects our balance of payments, that at times when we
have our fiscal problems to pass up what would ultimately
amount to $22 billion in balance of payment figures,
he thought, would be, as I said, quite unthinkable.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The other matter that was
discussed was a presentation by Governor Connally as
a member of the Ash Council and as Secretary of the
Treasury urging the Members of the House and the Senate
to look with favor on the restructuring of the government
that will be submitted in a Message to the Congress with
bills the latter part of this week.
The Governor, from his experience both in the
Executive Branch of the government, as Secretary of the
Navy and as Governor and as now Secretary of the Treasury,
spoke very forcefully on the basis that he felt the American
people, as well as himself, thought government was ineffective
and inefficient, and that we were going to provide the kind of
services to the American people that they deserve for the
investment they make through their taxes.
MORE
-2-
We had to have the restructuring from 11 to
7 Cabinet offices.
It is a reorganization that is very fundamental,
that will be on a functional basis, and when the Congress
has an opportunity to look at it, it is hoped that we will
bite the bullet, so to speak, and change these 11
Departments or Cabinet offices to 8, the four that we have
and the four that will be left after we go from 7 to 4,
so the people can get a better return on their investment,
better service in a more functional way.
Q
What are the chances for the SST? What
is the outlook now?
SENATOR SCOTT: I could tell you better, Helen,
tomorrow right after four o'clock.
Q
Tell us today. (Laughter).
SENATOR SCOTT: We are doing everything that is
humanly possible to persuade our colleagues of the viability
of the program, and point out that the environmental
studies are still going on, that the President has given
assurance that there will be no development beyond the
prototype unless we are satisfied as to the environmental
effects of the plane.
We think that has moved certain Senators. The
vote will be close and we are doing our best to assure that
we have enough. I can't tell you precisely, because there
are several uncommitted Senators.
But we believe they are open to persuasion and
we are doing just that.
I
Senator, are you getting a great deal of
help from some of the labor unions in order to put this over?
SENATOR SCOTT: I know what you know on that,
that the AFL-CIO is strongly committed to the program.
There are some 53,000 jobs involved.
I think to vote against the program, unless you
have good reason, and some people feel they do, I don't
agree, but to vote against the program is also going to
put a number of people out of work and possibly more later.
This has a wave effect on the aerospace industry,
and those people who grieved so much about unemployment
might consider what they are doing to it.
Q
Senator, we were told here last week that
alternate means of financing the prototypes would be
examined if the Congress failed to act properly. Was
there any discussion of that today?
MORE
-3-
MR. ZIEGLER: Just so we put the question in
perspective, in the statement from the White House last
week, in response to questions on what you raise, Gene,
I indicated that I assumed that if it did not pass the
Senate there would be suggestions made to us. I did
not say that we were examining, nor that we were considering
examining.
So, I would preface that question with that
statement.
Q
I am sorry. You didn't say last week, Ron,
that if the Congress failed to approve the SST prototypes
that alternate means of financing it would ---
MR. ZIEGLER: No, sir, because the point I was
making at that time was the fact of the matter is that
our hope rests with the Senate of the United States.
Q
I know where your hope rests.
MR. ZIEGLER: It is our objective to have the
Senate of the United States restore the funds for the
SST. We have not considered, except in a way to
determine that most alternatives that could be put
forth would not be viable alternatives to the Senate
action. But we do not have under active consideration
any other step than to work as hard as we can through
the Senate leadership and within the Senate to assure
passage of the SST.
Q
Senator, I assumed that your answer would
be that this wasn't discussed this morning.
SENATOR SCOTT: It was not discussed this morning.
0
Ron, has the White House sent letters to
key bankers in the country to see if they would be
interested in financing the SST program privately if
it doesn't pass the Senate?
MR. ZIEGLER: No, I am not aware of any such
letters.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There were no letters to
my knowledge, but there were letters, I believe, to Bill
Magruder, to the effect that this was a good investment
and there were letters from Gene Black and one of
his associates, and a letter from one of the Vice
Presidents of one of the large New York banks, addressed
to him that when the two prototypes were built and had
proven their air worthiness, et cetera, that it was a good
investment for the private sector for the production
models up to 500.
And it was a good investment for the airlines.
MORE
-4-
SENATOR SCOTT: And there has been government
support for every new major development in aircraft
construction in this country. And the competition is with
government-supported, government-constructed, government-
subsidized airlines in other countries. But in this
country, some $400 million from private and industry is
also involved in SST development.
Q
Senator Scott, earlier the Administration
position appeared to be just for the prototype development
program.
Has the position shifted now to the production
of the SST?
SENATOR SCOTT: No.
Q
Because you are tying in balance of payments.
That, of course, is an ultimate situation.
SENATOR SCOTT: No, of course, it hasn't shifted.
And nothing that I have said would indicate that it has
shifted. We are sticking to the two prototypes. If
they work, you have an ongoing prospect in industry which
would involve a $22 billion balance of payments situation.
But we are not saying that it will be done. We
are saying we are trying to find out whether it is feasible
to do it and whether you have a clean plane when you have
done it.
Q
Senator Scott, initially, it was my under-
standing at least, that the government felt that the payments
for the prototypes would eventually be shouldered by
private industry, if the plane proved feasible.
Has that plan been dropped or am I wrong?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, you are right on that, that
over a period of time the money would come back to the
government through private industry. But the government
is making the initial outlay, as it has done in other
instances, in support of other scientific progressions
over the years, and as other governments are consistently
doing in their attempt to undercut and ultimately to destroy
the U.S. aircraft industry, if they could.
That is the essence of competition here.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It is my understanding that if
the prototypes are built, and if the decision thereafter
is made to proceed with the production, that the United
States Government, because of its investment in the two
prototypes, will begin to get a royalty on the production
and delivery of every aircraft to the airlines throughout
the United States.
MORE
-5-
And at the point of 300 aircraft, if the
decision is made to proceed, the Federal Government's
investment will be returned with interest and if
the decision is made to go on to a production of 500,
the United States Government will get back on this royalty
basis $1 billion in benefits.
Q
Congressman, wouldn't the record on the
C5A and the TFX lead one to doubt whether that will
actually come about?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Not at all, because as
Secretary Volpe said this morning, in the last three years,
the production cost figures on this aircraft have
remained relatively stable. That was not true in the
case of the C5A. It was not true in the case of the F-111,
but in the SST; because of good management, they have
been able to keep the cost estimates for the last three
years relatively stable.
So the figures that I mentioned about the
return on the investment on the part of the Federal
Government will come into being if we build 300. Or if
we build 500 the Federal Government will make $1 billion.
2
Mr. Ford, last week you predicted the
House was going to pass this and obviously, you were
wrong on that. But how do you think the House would
feel about the idea of underwriting private investment,
if this fails in the Senate?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would hope, and I have
hoped for some time, that when we get to the production
that we can find a means of private financing for the
production through a COMSAT type of financial arrangement,
with the Federal Government perhaps guaranteeing the
securities that are used to finance the production.
I believe it is feasible. I would hope that
would be the way in which we would move into production;
to relieve the Federal Government of any further investment.
I think we can do it and I hope we will.
Q
Sir, I mean if the plan does not go through
the Senate tomorrow, then you have to move to some other
alternative. I am asking you what about the underwriting
of private investment for the prototype.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: If you want to get my analysis
of what happens if the Senate turns down the SST tomorrow,
I think within a relatively short period of time you will
have layoff slips for 13,000 employees who are now working
at the various plants in the production of the two prototypes.
There will be at least 13,000 layoff slips going out. And
in the second tier of sub-contractors, I think the estimate
is another 10,000 or 15,000.
That will be the immediate action. Some 20,000
or more layoff slips in a very short period of time.
MORE
-6-
They cannot proceed, if the appropriations aren't
made available. Whether there is a possibility that some other
force would come in or not, I just don't see how it could be
done in a timely fashion. I think the program would
undoubtedly collapse.
And the jobs would be gone and the leadership of the
United States in this very important field would be lost
permanently.
SENATOR SCOTT: The Russian supersonic plane will
be on exhibition at the Paris Air Show this autumn. They
are ready to sell planes. They are negotiating with
Japan and India right now.
I find it very hard to visualize the decision
where the United States will be willing to sacrifice its most
successful industry, perhaps, an industry which builds 85
percent of all the commercial jets in the world, to Russia
and to Britain and France because of the refusal and the
timidity of the American Congress under pressure in refusing to
go ahead with the development of just two prototypes of this
plane to be tested out on some remote airfield.
Q
Do you mean that the House would have any
hesitancy about accepting those funds? They turned them down
by a pretty good margin, even if the Senate approves
them tomorrow.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't think we should speculate
at this point what the House might do. I disagree with your
analysis that there was an overwhelming defeat.
Q
It was 15 or 20 votes.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No. It was 214 to 203.
Q
217 to 204.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Let's talk about the role call
vote. You are talking about the teller vote with the clerks.
On the final vote, it was 215 to 204, on the role call vote.
If there had been 5 more votes on our side to make
it 209, and if there had been 5 less votes on the other side,
the Speaker could have voted either to make a tie or break
a tie and the amendment would not have prevailed.
So there are 5 votes out of 435. There were 219
members present. That means that because of 2 absentees, or
2 seats not filled because of deaths, you have 433.
So you have 14 people who are absent. I think the
absentees could very easily make the difference.
Q
Senator Scott, the British and French aircraft
industries are old hands at building aircraft and both have
been very successful in constructing aircraft in World War I.
As a matter of fact, the British aircraft industry, as you
know, put out the first successful jet transport. They
MORE
-7-
have gotten together in recent years and they have built the
Concorde. The Concorde has cost far more than they ever
thought it would in the beginning.
And its per mile return now, it is figured, cannot
be successful, unless this aircraft is flown on each flight
crammed to the gills with people, which is an unreasonable
prediction.
Yet, you two gentlemen seem to have a boundless
faith that this aircraft we are talking about isn't going
to cost any more than is being predicted at this time.
Doesn't the experience of the Concorde give you
some pause as to how much this American SST might well cost?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think your question involves a
considerable amount of editorializing. (Laughter) I don't
accept a lot of the premises. But that would mean going
back and taking each sentence apart.
I would summarize it by saying that you have
already concluded that the British can't fly it.
There were a lot of people who said that about the Wright
Brothers, too.
I recall that when Isabella asked ---
Q
Do you recall?
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes, I recall. (Laughter) I do.
I have been around a long time.
I recall that when Isabella asked whether it would
be possible to make this voyage of discovery, the six wisest
men of the court all advised her that this couldn't happen.
Yes, it costs money for research. Yes, it may
cost more. But it is certainly more important to preserve
an industry and to find out with two prototypes whether or
not this is workable.
Perhaps the British-French were not as good as
managers as they might have been. Perhaps a joint partnership
of this kind between two nations is not the most economical
way to develop a plane.
But the Concorde, in my opinion, is going to fly.
It is going to compete and it is going to compete with
government subsidies.
We had better try to find a way where we can compete
in this country with that British-French plane. That is my
view.
Q
The Santa Maria sank. (Laughter)
SENATOR SCOTT: The Santa Maria sank, but that was a
66.7 percent successful operation.
Q
Was there any discussion of Laos or
troop withdrawals?
-8-
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The President, I think, pretty
adequately covered the situation last night in his interview.
The objectives of the operation are being
accomplished. They were to disrupt the flow of supplies and
manpower down the trails.
The withdrawal is according to schedule. I think
the President's statement on television last night pretty
well summarized the objectives and the results.
Q
Senator, on the SST, you have made sort of a
clear-cut case why the SST, the fact that it is only two
prototypes, no problem with sound, no problem with ecology,
the threat of unemployment, the prestige of American aviation,
the threat and the importance on the economy.
Why the hard-core opposition?
SENATOR SCOTT: The hard-core opposition, I think,
arises in part from the fact that so many Members of Congress
who were candidates in the last campaign were led into
giving some indication of their future voting intentions,
perhaps without full awareness of all of the arguments that
I have made so well and so skillfully here. (Laughter)
When you are appearing before a bunch of voters, or
constituents, you often make statements that you live to
regret, as no one knows better than I do.
I have run into a number of people who have said,
"I wish I hadn't moved so fast here, because the ecologists
made it appear that this was a violently dirty operation
all the way through, as if we were going to build the planes,
fly them and so besot the atmosphere that you couldn't breathe."
You only have to recall some of the cartoons to get
that picture.
Then it was told to the candidates that it was
economically not feasible, they had the priorities in the wrong
order and they hung themselves on every cliche in the book.
Now it is a little hard to go through the process of extraction.
It is very difficult for a man who has hung himself
on the coat hook in the back to disengage himself.
O
Senator Scott, one Pennsylvania Congressman
told me that his mail was running 100 to 1 against SST.
How has your mail been running and do you have any feel for
Senatorial mail in general on this?
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't speak for the others. My
mail is surely running against it. I am not sure I can give
you any percentage. But it is several times to one
against the SST. This is normal.
It also would run against a number of other things,
which are needed. Mail generally reflects who is the most
active in the pressure groups, and I take it that the AFL-CIO
activity may equalize that to some Senators.
MORE
-9-
I have learned not to just weigh my mail in
attempting to weigh my judgments. Also, I have found that
people who are against something of this type are also
against a dozen other things.
And there is an ancient maxim: People can be against
you thirteen times. They can only vote against you once.
I suggest that to my colleagues.
Q
Mr. Congressman, you said that the withdrawal
is according to schedule. Was it always the plan that on
March 22, March 21, we would pull out of Loas?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't think there was ever a
precise date that was picked or selected. But when the
basic objectives have been accomplished, then the mission
is in the process of being terminated.
When you look at the payoff, when you see the whole
truth, which is the substantial disruption of the supply lines,
the very, very heavy casualties on the part of the enemy,
when you see that this operation is going to accelerate
our troop withdrawal, when you see that the threat to the
American forces has been diminished and when you see the
increased capability of the South Vietnamese, I think we can
say that a great deal has been accomplished for the good of
the United States.
Q
Would not have been accomplished had the South
Vietnamese remained in Laos until the end of the dry season?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think this is a decision that is
made by General Abrams and his counterparts in the South
Vietnamese forces.
I wouldn't want to pass judgment from Washington
on that.
Q
You think the decision was based on the fact
that they had completed their objectives?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I have to believe that to be the
basis for the decision.
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
END
(AT 10:48 A.M. EST)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 20, 1971
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:00 A.M.
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership Meeting this morning
lasted two hours. Senator Scott and Congressman Ford are
here to discuss it with you.
We will begin this morning with Senator Scott.
Senator.
SENATOR SCOTT: There was much discussion of the
economy. The President and Mr. Shultz both expressed a great
deal of pleasure as to how it is going. The GNP quarterly
increase to $28.5 billion is an encouraging sign in spite
of the earlier pessimistic predictions of some of about $22
billion. We expect a continued downward movement in unemployment.
There are very sharp decreases in the interest
rates that have occurred -- the prime rate from 8-1/4 to
5-1/4 percent. The Department of Commerce is revising its
estimate of total construction for the next fiscal year upward
to $109 billion, an increase of 10 percent over the $90
billion this year, and it includes increases in all major
sectors, housing, commercial, industrial and highways,
for example, and personal income is up from $801 billion
in 1970 to a seasonally adjusted total so far indicated of
$829 billion.
The cost of money is going down. Inflation has
slowed and, as the President himself pointed out, the
question for economists now is not over whether the economy
is improving, but how much.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I might just supplement what
Senator Scott has said. He has given you the statistics
that certainly should greatly encourage all Americans that
the transition from a war-time economy to a peace-time
economy has been moving ahead very, very successfully.
The statistics show that we are on an upswing
and we have accomplished this without the problem of inflation
getting worse, but inflation getting under control.
The last two months show that inflation, if you
analyze it, is at an average rate of about 2.4 percent
compared with 6.2 percent, I think, in 1969.
MORE
-2-
I am sure that these figures and this new optimism
won't encourage our Democratic friends.
I would simply say to them that they have a vested
interest in the President's economic policies failing. And
we, as Republicans, believe those policies will be successful.
And all of the new evidence certainly indicates that is the
case.
The second subject which was discussed was the
Foreign Aid Message which is coming up to the Hill tomorrow.
It closely follows the recommendations of the Peterson
Commission. We hope to have prompt hearings in the House
and in the Senate. It is a revision that makes the Foreign
Aid Program more workable and more effective.
And we hope that the dollar amounts which are
approximately what the Congress authorized and appropriated
for the current fiscal year will be substantially supported.
Q What is the figure on that?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The figures are, in the case
of international security assistance, which includes the
military assistance, supporting assistance, $1.993 billion;
the international development assistance, $1.245 billion.
These are figures that are within the ball park
of the present fiscal year appropriations.
SENATOR SCOTT: One of these bills is for a one-
year extension. That is the military. The other is a
three-year extension.
One other comment on the economy: That is
that Mr. Shultz points out that long-term interest rates
represent, in the judgment of the financial community,
the long-term inflation situation. Therefore, as these
rates drop sharply, it can be interpreted as the investment
community's judgment that inflation is clearly coming under
control.
There was also discussion of the draft presented
by Mr. Flanigan. It was pointed out that the incentives
to volunteer for the armed forces have not yet been
adequately evaluated and next year a sharp fall of 100,000
men is expected so that we can't take a chance of solving
those problems in one year.
Many on the Hill, including myself, have long
favored ultimately an all volunteer force. The President
himself undoubtedly would like to see us get to the point
of an all volunteer force. But meanwhile, we have to proceed
with the facts as they exist. We have to have an army. And
the military pay increases in the House, taken with the
recent pay increases, would mean 100 percent total increase,
which is hardly supportable and would mean severe cuts
in other vital areas in the Defense Department.
MORE
-3-
It is hoped that the Senate will consider a bonus
on first enlistments, particularly where combat duty is
involved, and reprogramming of some funds for proficiency
pay will be included.
The Administration rather likes the House action on
student deferment changes and random selection draft procedures.
But we in the Senate will seek to obtain a return
to the Administration pay increase recommendations. I would
expect that the Senate Armed Services Committee will probably
not go along with a one-year, but rather a two-year draft
extension.
I would hope that the pay scale recommended by the
Administration would prevail in the Senate.
Q Did you discuss China or Vietnam, sir?
SENATOR SCOTT: Not at any great length. The
President made it clear that he feels that he is on the right
course in Vietnam. China was only discussed in a very limited
way. The President indicated these are certain small steps
that are being taken.
Q In discussing China, Senator, was there any
explanation of why the Vice President feels one way and the
President feels another way?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think Mr. Ford was there. He
can comment on that.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I was at the luncheon yesterday
where the Vice President spoke to the Governors and those of
us who were the guests of the Governors.
I listened to the speech very carefully. It was an
outstanding dissertation on the situation. The Vice President
indicated his strong support for the initiatives of the
President in trade, in cultural exchanges. There was not one
iota, no comment whatsoever by the Vice President at that
luncheon that indicated his non-support for the President's
initiatives in our relationships with China.
Q Congressman, I understand the Vice President
voiced his objections not at the luncheon, but at a
private session. Were you at that session also?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I was not at the private meeting.
As I read in the paper this morning, he met for some time
with some reporters at Williamsburg. But I can say
categorically and with emphasis that at the luncheon the
Vice President indicated his affirmative support for the
President's new initiatives and our relationships with
China, and, in fact, pointed out some things that would be
highly beneficial in possibly the expansion of our
relationships with China.
MORE
-4-
Q
Like what?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: This was a speech given in
executive session. I would prefer that the Vice President
speak on that.
Q Was the Vice President at the meeting this morning?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The Vice President was at the
meeting this morning.
Q Did he talk about the reports of his off the
record comments?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no comment by the Vice
President in that regard.
Q
Do you think he was misquoted?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I wouldn't know. I can only say
affirmatively that I was at the luncheon and the Vice President
spoke up as I indicated categorically in favor of the new
initiatives taken by the Administration in reference to our
policy in China.
Q Was it a private session with all the Governors?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It was a luncheon given by the
Governors and he was the only person that spoke. And it was an
excellent presentation that very greatly impressed me.
Q
Did he discuss the ping pong team visit?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: He didn't get into that aspect of
it.
Q Sir, I would like to ask Mr. Ziegler, if I may.
SENATOR SCOTT: Let me comment on the ping pong. It
was completely an above-the-board relationship with China.
(Laughter).
0 If I could interject one question. Do you have
any comment on the reports of the private briefing between the
Vice President and nine or eight reporters?
MR. ZIEGLER: No, I have no comment on the report of
the private session that the Vice President had in Williamsburg
with the reporters. I did talk to the Vice President this
morning before the Leadership meeting. Also, having sat in
most of the NSC meetings in which the subject of China has been
discussed, I can say, first of all on my own, that there has
never been any indication that the Vice President does not
support the initiatives that the President has taken most
recently and also the initiatives that he has taken toward
the People's Republic of China in the earlier days and months
of the Administration.
MORE
-5-
The Vice President authorized me to say on his
behalf this morning, anticipating your question, that there
is absolutely no disagreement between the Vice President
and the President's decision regarding the initiatives taken
in relation to the People's Republic of China.
The Vice President, as in the case in most Councils
in which he sits, often raises questions which merit discussion
and this happened in this particular case regarding our
discussions of further initiatives regarding Mainland China.
But I will just conclude by saying that there is
no difference between the Vice President and the President's
policy regarding the People's Republic of China.
MORE
- 6 -
Q
May I ask you one more question? Faced with
reports in several papers this morning of what the Vice
President allegedly told a group of reporters--I understand
the formula through which you arrive at decisions, the
dichotomy involving policy - -- how do you explain these reports
from reporters, experienced reporters, who say they have heard
the Vice President say what he is reported to have said?
MR. ZIEGLER: I haven't seen a report from those
who attended an off-the-record session with the Vice President.
I saw a report written by reporters who apparently had
discussions with someone who attended the off-the-record
session with the Vice President. However, I have not, as
long as I have been in this job, attempted to be able to
fully explain how impressions are created and how things
from time to time are, in all good spirit and good intention,
reported in the press.
All I can do is tell you at this time, quite
directly, that you should not pursue the story that there is
a difference of opinion within the Administration, particularly
a difference of opinion between the Vice President and the
President regarding the recent initiatives that the United
States Government took toward the People's Republic of China.
There is no difference of opinion.
I will simply stand on that statement and not
attempt to get into an analysis or an assessment of how stories
unfold or develop, particularly when apparently this one has
developed from an off-the-record session that the Vice
President had with certain members of the press.
I would finally conclude by saying that I think
Congressman Ford was quite clear on his remarks where he
reported on the Vice President's remarks at the executive
session that the Congressman attended.
Q Ron, based on your conversation with the Vice
President this morning, then the Administration's position is
that that story is absolutely false?
MR. ZIEGLER: The Administration's position, as I
think I stated it, is that there is no difference of opinion
between the Vice President and the President regarding recent
initiatives that the United States Government has taken toward
the People's Republic of China.
Q But you did indicate that the Vice President
had raised some questions in the NSC meetings. Is that what
you said?
MR. ZIEGLER: Let me just say that the Vice President,
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, when you
are involved in a session talking about major policy -- the
President probes their minds to find out what their views are,
what thinking they have on a given subject. This is the way
the President proceeds in a meeting.
So that took place in these particular deliberations,
also. But I said my assessment, having sat in most of those
meetings, was that there was -- even going through that process --
no great difference of opinion between the Vice President and
MORE
- 7 -
the President.
So as I suggested, I would not pursue that story
any further.
Q May I ask Senator Scott a question? Sir, you
are a lifelong student of China and considered an expert.
How do you evaluate the apparent thaw? Are you genuinely encouraged?
SENATOR SCOTT: I believe that where you have a nation
with a population approaching a billion people that it is
necessary to know and to recognize that they exist. We
were dealing with them in Warsaw. It would be good to have
the Warsaw conferences resumed, which were cancelled at the
time of Cambodia.
I think it is desirable to take such small and
modest, and on the whole, amiable steps as would encourage
the people of Mainland China to understand that the people
of the United States have nothing but friendly feelings toward
them as a people.
And they are an insular and isolated society at the
present time, and that is never good for world comfort.
I have talked to the President in the past and he
has said that the time will come when Mainland China will open
up entirely to visitors. And I have suggested that if he ever
plans to go there after his eight years in office, I would like
to accompany him.
Q Sir, do you think that China now and the
People's Republic is more or less xenophobic than it was at
the time of the Boxer Uprising?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think certainly less xenophobic
because then the entire focus was against the so-called "foreign
devils" in the international settlements which have been held
by colonialist methods.
The Red Guard Uprising was xenophobic, surely,
in its aspects recently -- a few years ago. But there are
signs that the all-out revolutionary Maoism is being tempered
to at least some degree by the influence of such as Chou En-Lai.
I think I am one of the few people who have ever seen Chou En-Lai
close up. I had that opportunity once.
It is likely that he is more world-minded than the
Chairman of the Party.
Q Senator, another question: Did the President
say anything about unfreezing that $12 billion, or whatever
it is, of money?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, it was a warm meeting. We weren't
discussing freezing or unfreezing or anything else. It didn't
come up.
Q
Senator, did you discuss the charges by some Members
of Congress that they are under surveillance by the FBI?
SENATOR SCOTT: It wasn't discussed, because it didn't
happen, in my opinion.
MORE
- 8 -
I
Did the President give any kind of a date,
speaking of dates, on when China would open up?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, I am not getting into dates.
Ron and I have an agreement on that. (Laughter)
Q Senator, do you envision a visit to Red China
while the President is in office?
SENATOR SCOTT: By him or me?
Q By him or you.
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't have any knowledge of any
such thing being under consideration at all by either of us
at this time. But if a bunch of Congressmen start over
there, they had better make room for me on the plane.
Q
I would like to ask Mr. Ziegler a question. Ron,
was it ascertained that Vice President Agnew actually had a
private session with a few reporters in Williamsburg yesterday?
MR. ZIEGLER: I have given my comments. You will
have to pursue that with the Vice President's staff.
Q I think it is essential that we know whether this
even occurred. You talked about third-hand reports and so
forth. I simply want to know if, in your conversations with
him or somebody's conversation, he was asked if he did indeed
have this session.
MR. ZIEGLER: As I said, you will have to pursue that
with the Vice President's staff. I think it is known that there
was a session in Williamsburg with members of the press.
I think I referred to that earlier, Jim.
Q
Would you like to speculate as to why the
Vice President would have an off-the-record session with a
few reporters to discuss China?
MR. ZIEGLER: You will have to pursue that with his
staff, Jim.
SENATOR SCOTT: I think it is just because he
likes newspaper people. (Laughter)
Q
Did the name J. Edgar Hoover come up this morning?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The whole issue, including J. Edgar
Hoover, was never discussed at the meeting this morning.
Q Has Congressman Boggs given you any indication
of what he is going to say on Thursday in terms of wiretapping?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I haven't seen the text of his
comments, I know he has a special order on Thursday for one
hour. I personally believe that whatever evidence he has, if
he has any, ought to be submitted to an appropriate committee
of the House or the Senate and put out for the benefit of the
Congress as a whole and for the American people.
I think this is a serious charge. Evidence is the best
way to determine the facts, if there is evidence. Then, of course,
the Department of Justice and the FBI would have the opportunity to
put its case likewise before an appropriate committee.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
LND
(AT 10:21 A.M. EST)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 15, 1971
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD F. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:15 A.M. EDT
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership Meeting this morning
lasted for two hours. Senator Scott and Congressman Ford
are here to give you a report on that meeting.
Senator Scott.
SENATOR SCOTT: There was discussion of the forthcoming
vote tomorrow before five o'clock on the McGovern-Hatfield
Amendment. I reported to the President that the vote this
year will be very close to the same vote last year when the
amendment lost 39 to 55. There are about six doubtful and
the vote will be in the same neighborhood, give or take one
or two votes.
I also brought up at another part in the discussion
the old question of the inadvisability of fixing a deadline
for the withdrawal of troops. I am convinced that fixing
a deadline could not be helpful and would, indeed, be
harmful to the continuing negotiations.
Congressman Ford can speak on it, but I gather that
the fate of the Nedzi-Whalen Amendment is about the same in
the House of Representatives. I will turn over the discussion
to Representative Ford now on the question of drug addition,
which consumed at least an hour, didn't, Jerry?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Thank you very much, Hugh.
The first hour of the Leadership Meeting this
morning was in reference to the President's expanded program
against the problem of drugs in the United States.
The President is sending a Message to the Congress
on Thursday, which will call for the establishment of a
White House office to coordinate the expanded program. It
will have four main points, first of which is to expand
our efforts to get at the source of supply in those countries
where heroin, hard drugs, are grown.
The President had a meeting with Ambassadors from
these countries earlier this week.
MORE
-2-
Secondly, there will be an expanded effort by the
law enforcement agencies against the pushers, the professional
people who make these drugs available to the people who are
in the process of becoming addicts.
Thirdly, there will be a greatly expanded program
for the veterans who are all over the world, who have become
addicted to the drug problem.
It will be a detoxification program, a readjustment
program, so that when they get back to society, they will
not have the problems that they acquired at the time they
were in the service.
Fourthly, there will be a program greatly expanded
as well of education to convince younger people primarily
that the drug culture atmosphere is not in their best
interests or in the best interests of the country.
This Message will come up on Thursday. It will
include legislation to expand in the areas I have indicated
and will include a request for additional funding.
Q
How much?
CONGRES SMAN FORD: That particular dollar amount
was not discussed in detail. It will be included in the
Message, but the indication was it would be fairly substantial.
MORE
- 3 -
Ω Senator, has the publication by the New
York Times of these documents on Vietnam affected the Senate
attitude on the MaGovern-Hatfield Amendment?
SENATOR SCOTT: I very much doubt it. The sentiment
on MaGovern-Hatfield is substantially as before, but the
improvement in the withdrawal situation in Vietnam is
marked. There have been something over 200,000 armed forces
withdrawn from Vietnam since the MaGovern-Hatfield Amendment
was first discussed about two years ago.
And I do not think that there has been any impact
on this vote at all.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: If I might supplement that, because
the question could be, "Would the document release have an
impact on the Nedzi-Whalen Amendment?"
I don't think it will for this reason: When
President Nixon came into office, he asked for a total
reassessment of the situation in Vietnam and on the basis
of that reassessment, the policy of withdrawal was implemented.
So this Administration is not predicating its actions
on any of those documents that have been revealed. This
Administration is acting on the basis of a new reassessment
that was made at the outset of the Administration.
SENATOR SCOTT: The President's first action when
he became President was to call for this full and complete
reassessment of foreign policy and on that basis he evolved
his own new foreign policy.
Q
Could I ask you gentlemen if you support the
move of the Administration to impose an injunction on the
New York Times not to continue publishing this?
SENATOR SCOTT: I understand that the Justice
Department will take such action as it deems in the interest
of national security. You have seen the papers. There has
been the necessary preliminary demand for the return of the
documents.
I take it that that is the first step on which an
injunction would be based. But you would have to ask the
Justice Department how they would proceed step by step.
Q
Senator, I think maybe you ducked my question.
I asked you if you supported an injunction against the New
York Times.
SENATOR SCOTT: On the question of classification
of documents, the declassifcation can only be made by the
Executive Department. And a release of classified information,
if it violates the law, would require action by the Justice
Department. If they so conclude, then I would feel that they
were acting in accordance with their own sworn duty.
O Mr. Ford?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: This is classified information.
There is a law that says the release of such information is
MORE
-- 4 -
in viloation of the statute.
This matter undoubtedly, if the New York Times
continues, will go to the courts. The final decision will
rest with the courts as to whether or not there has been
a violation of the law. That is where the decision will be
made. It won't be made in the Congress and it won't be
made in the Executive Branch of the Government.
SENATOR SCOTT: The courts would have to determine
the question of the damage to the integrity of government
and to the trust of other governments in dealing with us
incidental to the whole question of who has the right
to classify and declassify documents.
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
END
(AT 10:25 A.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 14, 1971
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
10:20 A.M.
EDT
MR. WARREN: The President met with the Republican
Leadership this morning for two hours, basically to discuss
the new economic policies. Senator Scott will report to you
on that meeting.
SENATOR SCOTT: The President called on Mr. Shultz
and Mr. Weber and Secretary Walker to discuss the impact of the
new economic policy.
Mr. Weber made the point that the new agency has
answered some 750,000 questions. They have had only 8,661
written complaints received, which is an infinitesimal number
considering the possibilities. There have been 1,439 requests
for exemptions received, and thus far no exemptions have been
granted. They are following a rule of stringency on this.
As to benefits to consumers, the excise tax repeal will
pass on about $2 billion to consumers. The proposed tax reduc-
tions to individuals will amount to $4.9 billion, so that is
nearly $7 billion in reductions to individuals, not counting
other reductions individuals have received by prior actions
of the Administration.
The benefit to corporations is estimated at approxi-
mately $1 billion. Therefore, there is little substance to
the argument that the President's proposals have benefited
business, rather than the consumers, and, of course, some
2-1/2 million individuals in small business will benefit
from the tax reform.
On one other matter, before Gerry picks up at this
point, the President has already told you, I believe, that
he talked to Governor Rockefeller regarding the problem at
Attica, and he told the Governor that he felt there was no
other recourse available to him, under the circumstances in
view of the possible danger of greater loss of life, and so
far as any comments made in the meeting, everyone there was
agreed that in this very difficult situation, Governor Rocke-
feller had taken the only course available to him.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The President also asked for a
report on the resolution which will be considered in the
House next week that would seek to override the President's
deferral of the pay increase for Federal employees. The
President took the action because it was the only way that he
could call upon the Federal employees to meet the same chal-
lenge that he has asked of those employees, those wage earners,
in the private sector, and it was also pointed out that Federal
MORE
- 2 -
employees, since 1969, have had a 21 percent increase in
their pay, and that in order to equalize the sacrifice of the
private sector and the employees in the Federal Government,
the President felt that this action was necessary.
Again bearing in mind the overwhelming public sup-
port that is coming in every day for the overall wage-price
freeze and the economic package, it is my belief, and I think
it is shared by others, that the House will support the
President when this matter comes before the House next week.
I
What about the Senate, Senator Scott?
SENATOR SCOTT: I doubt if it ever reaches the
Senate. If it does, I would think the chances of supporting
the President are somewhat better than the other result.
Certainly the President could not view with anything but a
great deal of concern the passage of the Waldie resolution.
We will oppose it strenuously if it comes to the Senate, but
I doubt that it will.
Q
What was said about Phase 2 of the President's
economic program this morning?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, a great deal of discussion
generally, but mostly that the President would later have some
decisions to announce regarding ongoing plans. At the end of
the 90 days, everything does not stop. There will be further
statements made and possible recommendations made for legis-
lative action, if needed.
Phase 2 was not discussed in detail, but only the
fact that Phase 1 seems to be operating quite well, and that
the Administration has been able to deal, with 4,500 present
Government employees, what it took OPA some 40,000 people to
do, because the difference here is that it is a freeze, rather
than a broad attempt to control the economy on a permanent
basis.
Q
Do you anticipate that Phase 2 will require
more than 4,500 people to operate?
SENATOR SCOTT: Nothing was said about that, except
that the intention of the Government is to operate the
economic plan with personnel available in various agencies.
County agricultural agents, for example, are being used, and
the intent is not to increase the employment rolls if at all
possible.
Q
Was there any discussion of the nature of a
Wage-Price Stabilization Board, particularly how much control
the Government would have over it?
SENATOR SCOTT: It was not so discussed, no.
Q
Was there any discussion of the international
aspects of the new economic policies?
SENATOR SCOTT: Some, yes. There was some general
discussion. Mr. Springer made a report on his recent visits
with Mr. Sato, and Senator Javits on reports with Western
European leaders.
MORE
- 3 -
I spoke on behalf of Mr. Allott and myself on a
meeting I had recently in Bonn with Chancellor Brandt, who said,
in effect, he thoroughly understood what we were doing, and
he could live with it, and had he been President Nixon, he
probably would have done the same sort of thing.
We met with the opposition, former Chancellor
Erhard, who said his only criticism would be it would have
been better to do it even earlier.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it could also be said
that the President reaffirmed what he said before the Joint
Session of the Congress last week; that our position inter-
nationally will be one of not only being concerned about
foreign affairs, but also deeply concerned about the domestic
problems at home, and that we were not going to sacrifice our
position at home in order to placate countries or areas abroad.
SENATOR SCOTT: The President further made the point
several times that the package is an integral one, and while
some might wish to remove one part of it or another, the
success of this new economic policy is a situation where the
whole depends on the adherence of all of the parts of the pro-
gram.
Q
What is the outlook in Congress for the whole
package, not only for the new legislation requested, but for
keeping tax relief to the level the President advocated, and
also keeping Congressional expenditures down?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Congressman Byrnes, our ranking
member on the Committee on Ways and Means, gave a report, and
he indicated that the package recommended by the President,
the tax package, would be the basic vehicle, with some perhaps
minor modifications.
He felt that the legislation would be on the Floor
the last week in October, and felt that the package would
get through the House, just with some minor modifications,
like the President recommended. The hold-down on expendi-
tures is primarily, at this point, action that can be taken
by the Executive in the freezing of funds already appropriated.
We have, I believe, 10 out of the 14 appropriations
bills already approved and as a matter of law. The ones that
are left are, of course, Defense, but that will probably be
reasonably what the President recommended. The others are
relatively minor in dollar amount. I think the Congress --
or I should say, more specifically, the House -- will probably
be more economy minded because of the President's action, and
because of the public support for a position that the Federal
Government ought to tighten its belt if they are asking the
American people to do the same as far as their expenditures
and their opportunities are concerned.
Senator Scott points out that in a poll that was
taken just recnetly, the public support for the overall pro-
gram, the wage-price freeze, is in the magnitude of about
77 percent. That is overwhelming support, and that will have
an impact, unquestionably, on the action of the Congress on
appropriations, as well as on the tax package.
MORE
- 4 -
I
Who brought up the Attica Prison situation?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President brought it up himself, at
the end of the session and he also brought it up in conversation
with me later, that he had talked to Governor Rockefeller and he
himself had lived through many hard decisions, that he had sympathy
for the Governor's courage in meeting this as he did. He said he
felt greater loss of life would have occurred had the decision not
been made. He called the Governor and told him he agreed with him.
On another matter, the President, as you know, is having a
bipartisan Congressional meeting next Friday afternoon. I don't
have the hour. He is meeting with Senator Mansfield and myself
at 3:30 this afternoon.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: On the Attica matter, Congressman
Barber Conable of New York, who lives within three miles of the
prison, is going up there today because of the tragedy. He indicated
his full support of the action taken by the Governor. Attica is in
his District. He actually pointed out that some of the prisoners
guards, the hostages, were actaully neighbors of his family in that
area. He is leaving shortly to go up to attend some of the funerals.
SENATOR SCOTT: Senator Javits also indicated his approval
of the Governor's action.
Q
Did they also agree that the Governor should not have
gone to Attica himself?
SENATOR SCOTT: No statement was made on that. That was
a decision for the Governor to make. It was p!ointed out that 28
out of 30 demands had been agreed to and the other two he felt he
could not agree to.
Q
What is the outlook for the new economic proposals
in the Senat , Senator Scott?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think it looks pretty good for
favorable action, with such modifications which the Committee, in
its wisdom, might make, which are not considered to be major. I
suspect the Senate will go along. We will take longer and make
more noise, but in the end we will go along.
Q
Was the military aid, the draft bill discussed?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Senator Scott gave a report on the
status in the Senate. The House Members urged that action be taken
to support the Conference Report because of problems that might
arise if the Conference report were defeated in the Senate?
2
What is the status in the Senate?
SENATOR SCOTT: The status is that because of the
discussions over the military pay raise various tabling motions
are being considered. One could be offered at any time, either
by Senator Mansfield, for example, or by several others, some
of whom are on the Appropriations or Armed Services Committees.
The outcome of a tabling motion is in my judgment doubtful. I
had thought yesterday that such a motion would lose. Now there
is evidence that it is closer than that. However, the House has
discharged their duty, so it would be a real "schmazle" if we sent
it back, under the circumstances. They would have to make a new
decision.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Did the President ask Senator Allott to withdraw his
efforts to restore the cut in the pay raise?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President did not say anything to
Senator Allott at the time. Senator Allott indicated that some
Senator might make a motion to table. He did not indicate
that he would be the one, although he did make some such
statement on the Floor yesterday. The President did not,
at this meeting, as Senator Allott to withdraw it.
Q
Senator, what is the nature of the meeting today
with the President?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, I have not been advised. I believe
it is partly to get a report from Senator Mansfield and myself
on our activity with the Interparliamentary Union. We did
use the bus, by the way, part of the time, for the benefit
of Newsweek. (Laughter)
We did have an interesting meeting with a great many
people, including the Russian leaders, the Bulgarians, the
Romanians and all. I have a lot to report to him on my two
hour and 40 minute session with President Ceausecu of Romania
and the meeting I had for 45 minute meeting with Suslov, the
number three man in Russia, the head of the Foreign Affairs
Section, who has hitherto never met with an American, so that
was an interesting session.
Q
Senator Scott, when you were there, did you hear
anything concerning reported troop maneuvers into Bulgaria
in which airborne Russian units might have participated?
SENATOR SCOTT: No. I was in Bulgaria and I could see
for myself there were not Soviet forces during the tail end
of the maneuvers. A country which normally has virtually no
traffic had heavy truck traffic, consisting entirely, to the
best of my observation, as a former intelligence officer,
consisting entirely of Bulgarian forces. Certainly if there
were any Russians there they were in Bulgarian uniforms,
and I doubt that.
&
What did Suslov tell you?
SENATOR SCOTT: That has to be pretty much off the record.
He is generally regarded as the number one ideologue and
dialectician. He didn't get into any of that sort of thing.
He is said to be aloof and an iceberg. He is not. He is a
very affable fellow who reminds me of a sort of sardonic New
Englander, a big 200 pound New Englander, who has strong
opinions and does not approve of our foreign policies in some
particulars, but who was affable, surprisingly friendly and
witty. I enjoyed the conversation very much and at the end I
reminded him that I had often proposed that the astronauts
and the cosmonauts make a joint venture into space. His
comment was, at the close of the interview, that "I think
we have got troubles enough on earth."
Q
Did you discuss the trip to Red China with him,
Senator?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, that was a misunderstanding. He
did not mention the journey to Peking. He mentioned China only
very peripherally. He did talk about the Viet Cong and on
that I cannot talk.
- 6 -
But he talked at some length on his opinions on our actions
in Southeast Asia, some references to Japan, and only a passing
reference to the Peoples Republic of China, and needless to
say, he does not agree with our policies in Southeast Asia.
2
Did you discuss with the President this morning
the movements on the Hill to repeal the accelerated deprecia-
tion allowances?
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes. Congress Ford can discuss that.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Congressman Byrnes indicated that there
undoubtedly would be a fight in the Committee to negate the
Executive action in approving ADR. He felt those moves could
be defeated.
On the other hand, there is a possibility that there might
be some action that would, in effect, approve the action taken
by the White House or the Secretary of the Treasury so that
some of the .legal problems that have arisen because of law
suits filed might be eliminated. In other words, there would
be an approval of the action, giving it Congressional approval,
even though there might be some minor change in one way or
another as to what was done specifically.
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
END
(AT 10:42 A.M. EDT)
m. Ford
WILLIAM E. TIMMONS
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
THE WHITE HOUSE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DECEMBER 15, 1971
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE CARL ALBERT
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
CONGRESSMAN HALE BOGGS
CLARK MacGREGOR, COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT FOR CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS
AT 1:37 P.M. EST
MR. WARREN: Ladies and gentlemen, the bipartisan
leadership meeting with the President just ended, and I will
turn this over to Clark MacGregor, who can introduce you to
the leaders who are here.
MR. MacGREGOR: The President was most pleased
with the response, on short notice, of Speaker Albert and
the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House and Senate,
and the committee chairmen and ranking Republicans of the
Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees and of
the Banking and Currency Committees of the House and Senate
who were in town and were able to come and meet with the
President.
The meeting lasted about an hour and 15 minutes.
The sole topic of discussion and consultation was the mone-
tary and financial aspects of the President's meeting with
President Pompidou of France.
I would like to introduce to you -- and that seems
an odd word -- the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Speaker Carl Albert, to talk as he may choose about the meet-
ing, and, of course, we are delighted that Senator Mansfield,
Senator Scott, Congressman Boggs and Congressman Ford are also
here. Mr. Speaker?
THE SPEAKER: Thank you, Clark.
I think I can summarize that the President and the
Secretary of the Treasury gave us a very informative and in-
depth briefing on the Presidential talks with President Pompi-
dou on the trade and monetary features, as Clark MacGregor
said, of the Pompidou meeting.
I think our reaction, at least on the House side,
was that we are hopeful that the negotiations this weekend
will proceed fruitfully. We are optimistic that while we
are adopting, in a sense, a wait and see attitude, it is our
view and belief that the Congress will support the recommen-
dations of the President when and if they are sent to the
Congress.
SENATOR MANSFIELD: There isn't much I can add to
what The Speaker has already said. The agreement at the
Azores with President Pompidou was an encouraging first step.
We are looking forward with interest to the meeting of the
10 this weekend in Washington.
MORE
- 2 are
While some questions were raised and some answers
will be forthcoming, we think that it is a step in the right
direction; that it will be beneficial to the American
economy, and we await with interest further details coming
out of the meeting this next weekend, and other meetings very
likely to be held, as well.
SENATOR SCOTT: I can only report that our report
to the President indicated that on Capitol Hill the reaction
has been favorable and we have heard no voice of dissent
regarding the hopeful conclusion of these discussions, par-
ticularly the one just had with the French President.
CONGRESSMAN BOGGS: I should like to concur with what
the Speaker and the Majority and Minority Leaders in
the Senate have said. I think when the President sends up his
recommendations for legislation, that we have every reason
to believe that those recommendations will receive bipartisan
support.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Let me add my voice to those
that have been given already. If the negotiations material-
ize the way we hope they will, it would be my reaction that
the House and the Senate would respond accordingly. We cer-
tainly hope those negotiations proceed as they appear to be.
They are important, and the Congress will respond based on
those negotiations.
Q Could anyone say, did Secretary Connally or
the President say how much devaluation he anticipates?
SENATOR MANSFIELD: No.
Q
Did he give any numbers?
SENATOR MANSFIELD: No, they are working on that
particular facet at the present time. No agreement has been
reached. Numbers have been rooted around, but they are
still to be decided.
Q
Are you expecting this to be wrapped up this
weekend at the Group of 10 meeting? Did the President and
Secretary Connally give you any indication?
SENATOR MANSFIELD: We hope it would be, but we
don't know. I imagine the negotiations may be difficult this
time, as they have been in the past. But I think the air
is a little more clear and the possibilities a little better.
Q
Senator Mansfield, do you expect Congress will
act when you return from recess?
SENATOR MANSFIELD: Yes. Any recommendations
sent up by the President will be given the most expeditious
consideration.
Q
Can you tell us what this means to the American
citizen, Senator Mansfield?
SENATOR MANSFIELD: Well, I can attempt to. It
will mean that the economy will remain just about as is;
that there may be more jobs for people based on exports.
MORE
- 3 -
It will mean that as far as the value of the dollar
is concerned here at home, it will be just as good then as
it is now, and I think it is quite solid, despite all the
reports to the contrary.
Q
Could someone please tell us basically what
will have to be done when Congress comes back and the
President requests authorization on gold?
CONGRESSMAN BOGGS: Basically, the respective
committees have to consider the recommendations. In both
cases, in the House Banking and Currency Committee, and
the Senate as well.
Q
Basically, how long would that be?
CONGRESSMAN BOGGS: I wouldn't think it would take
long.
Q
Are you talking about days or weeks?
CONGRESSMAN BOGGS: I am talking about, I would
think, a week or 10 days.
SENATOR SCOTT: I will say this, because I have been
told earlier by Mr. Petersen, and with authority, to point
out that every percentage increase in this revaluation
settlement is estimated to mean a difference of about $700
million to $800 million toward our favorable balance of
payments.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 1:45 P.M. EST)
ford Ress Conference
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JANUARY 26, 1972
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:15 A.M. EST
MR. ZIEGLER: As Jerry Warren I think already
mentioned to you, Dr. Kissinger will have a briefing in the
East Room at about 11:00. One of the reasons for the change
in time was the fact that the Leadership Meeting lasted for
two hours this morning. Because we do have some time, we
will proceed with the regular Leadership briefing.
Senator Scott and Congressman Ford are here to
discuss that with you this morning.
Senator Scott.
SENATOR SCOTT: There was general agreement that
last night's speech is an answer to reasonable people with
reasonable doubts; of course, it would never be an answer to
those who would demand total surrender. But serving the cause
or peace is uniting the people behind a reasonable peace
proposal.
The reaction to the speech has been excellent and
withdrawal of prisoners of war could begin even prior to
a cease-fire if the other side would accept the President's
plan, the six months proposal.
Also, the military solutions are separable from
the political solutions if they want that. I am personally
very proud and very pleased that the President's revelations
are more than an answer to all of those people who felt that
we had not been meeting with Hanoi on the seven points and
the revelation that there was another 9-point discussion
is also interesting, but ever since the 31st of last May,
we have been more than ready to do more than most critics
have advocated.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Let me just supplement quickly
what Senator Scott has said. The public reaction, as well as
the political reaction, is very, very good. I think it
proves the point that the President and the Administration
for the past 30 months have been making a vigorous and
constructive effort to negotiate in a fair way and that as
a consequence, most Americans have apparently united behind
the President's effort to end the war in Vietnam by the
process of negotiation.
MORE
- 2 -
The words of the President were carefully, carefully
drafted and the word "overthrow" was very specifically used,
because that is what, in the negotiation, the North Vietnamese
have been using in the context of a political settlement.
I think the Congress will respond affirmatively
to the President's proposals and the President's record last
night.
Q
Senator Scott, could you identify or do you
know any of those people who advocate surrender in Vietnam?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think they will rather quickly
identify themselves. You will find that those who say that we
ought to get out unconditionally, immediately, unilaterally,
without any conditions and without the preservation of our
prisoners of war situation and without the preservation of
our commitments, those people are advocating total surrender
and to identify them will become quite clear and I will be
glad to help do it.
Q
You would not include the prisoners of war
families in that category because they are advocating a fixed
date of withdrawal in exchange only for prisoners of war.
SENATOR SCOTT: I did not imply that the advocacy
was evil. I said that those who would have a total withdrawal
without conditions are advocating total surrender. A great
majority of the families of the prisoners of war have indicated
their support of the President's conduct of the war. A small
group, very loud and very vocal has been brought together
to create the impression otherwise.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I noticed last night in watching
several of the networks where several of the wives and mothers
of prisoners of war were interrogated, almost without
exception, they supported the President's efforts and they
were pleased with what the President has done and intends to do.
Q
Are you saying, Senator, that people who
advocate total withdrawal conditioned only on release of the
prisoners are advocating surrender?
SENATOR SCOTT: I did not say that, but the question
of reality arises right there. It is entirely obvious now
that Hanoi has several times flatly refused to agree to the
release of the prisoners of war in exchange for total withdrawal
of American forces alone. Therefore, that is unrealistic.
Q
Where we read the President's speech that
proposal has never been made in the language that you use.
I would like to ask this question.
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't agree with you, but go ahead.
Q You supported the Mansfield resolution which
calls for total withdrawal conditioned to the one point of
release of the prisoners. Are you disappointed that the
President never made that proposal to Hanoi?
MORE
- 3 -
SENATOR SCOTT: First of all, I did not support the
Mansfield resolution, unless my memory has failed me on that.
I recall leading the opposition to the Mansfield resolution.
Q
Well, some Republicans supported the Mansfield
resolution.
SENATOR SCOTT: Some Republicans, yes.
Q
Could you answer the specific question: Did
the President propose to Hanoi a total withdrawal of American
forces from Vietnam solely in exchange for release of American
prisoners of war?
SENATOR SCOTT: Hanoi precluded that question because Hanoi
said they would not negotiate on that subject. They were
felt out on that. I cannot say the exact words, but Hanoi's
reaction and answer was that they would not consider that or
any other military solution unless it were linked with the
political solution.
So, Hanoi precluded any further on-going discussion
of that point. Dr. Kissinger will cover that, I am sure.
Q Senator, are any of the Democratic Presidential
candidates among those whom you say advocate what amounts
to surrender?
-
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, I don't want to prejudge
their reaction, now that they have been proved wrong. We
will have to see whether they will persist in error or not.
If they do, we will point it out. We will give them a chance
for confession of error.
Q
Would you say up to this point what they
advocated amounted to surrender?
SENATOR SCOTT: I would say the advocacy of one
or two of them came rather close to an abject surrender, yes.
Q Which ones?
SENATOR SCOTT: I will not name them, but I will
say that men like Senators Humphrey and Kennedy have been
most honorable and careful in the advocacy of their views.
Q
Setting aside Hanoi's attitude for the moment,
do you know whether the Administration privately or secretly
has ever proposed a straight swap of total withdrawal of
American forces for American prisoners?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think you will get that answer from
Dr. Kissinger.
Q
Do you know the answer?
MORE
- 4 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I have a pretty good idea of it, but
I would rather you go right to the horse's mouth. I think
you will get it from Dr. Kissinger and I would rather you do.
I am satisfied that Hanoi precluded further pursuit of that
question.
Q
Was there any political reason why the President
suddenly decided after 30 months of secrecy, decided to open
the book, the Presidential elections, for example?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, I don't think so. I think the
President decided to open the book because Hanoi was denying
in public many of the elements of negotiation which had
occurred in private. We had made a number of proposals. We
had met their nine points, not by agreements, but by willingness
to discuss them.
We had opened up a number of times the prisoners of
war issue. We had opened up the total withdrawal issue.
Dr. Kissinger was there 13 times and they were saying, for
example, to American visitors in this form of double talk,
that maybe something could be done, but in private talks with
our representatives, they were not saying the same thing. When
one of the negotiators was asked why that is, he said, "Well,
we Vietnamese are very courteous people."
Q Senator, is there any chance now for resumption
of these private talks or is it your impression that that
track has now run its course?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't believe that the statement
by the President last night precludes either private or
public negotiation.
SENATOR SCOTT: And it is our desire to proceed
with both, but it became necessary to show the true facts
at this time in order to counter the fact that American
people were beginning to believe what was not true.
MORE
- 5 *19
Q
Senator, what did you discuss in the meeting
with the President this morning?
SENATOR SCOTT: All of these subjects; the speech,
principally. There was a brief discussion of the Economic
Report.
O Did you discuss the budget deficit?
SENATOR SCOTT: It was discussed briefly.
Q Has the American position always been that we
would withdraw subsequent to a settlement?
SENATOR SCOTT: I believe so, Since President Nixon
has been President we have always been willing to withdraw
from Vietnam, and as soon as possible, under circumtances which
would permit us to withdraw.
Q Then what is so different about what was made
public last night?
SENATOR SCOTT: Because Hanoi has consistently denied
a number of the overt suggestions of the American negotiators
and emissaries.
O
What impact do you believe this proposal will
have on the President's trip to Peking?
SENATOR SCOTT: I would suppose that Peking's intel-
ligence service is as good as Mainland China's intelligence
service was when I was working that area; that is, they know
everything already. I don't think there would be much impact,
if any.
Q
In your discussions this morning, did you talk
about the election proposal and what the North Vietnamese or
Viet Cong attitude is on that?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, we simply discussed the
willingness of President Thieu and Vice President Huong to
resign and to put the electoral machinery entirely under
an independent commission. It will not be under the caretaker
government.
We felt this goes a long way to meet Hanoi's constant
contention that it will not deal with the present government.
So, we are willing for them to take their chances in a
supervised election and deal with whatever government comes
out of it.
2
Has the President advised on how this independent
commission would be arranged? Would it be United Nations,
international control commission, or what?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think Dr. Kissinger will enlarge
on that somewhat for you, but it was not discussed in detail
in our meeting.
MORE
- 6 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It was pointed out, I might
add, that in the original organization, the National
Liberation Front would have a part in establishing the
rules and the ground work for the election.
Q
Under this new election arrangement, President
Thieu would still be a candidate to succeed himself, would
he not?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It is perfectly possible, but
he has agreed, as the President said last night, and he
reiterated this morning, to resign at least 30 days, along
with his Vice President, before the election. This is
a personal view, but I don't think you should preclude him
from being a candidate again in any election. But it would
be a supervised election with him and possibly many, many
others seeking the Presidency.
SENATOR SCOTT: That international supervision would
go into effect the day the agreement is signed and the
resignation occurs.
Q
Who would run the police force, army and
international apparatus, the caretaker commission?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The caretaker government. The
man who would assume the reins of government would be the
President of their Senate and he would have sole control
and jurisdiction over such matters as the police force,
et cetera.
Q
Does that maintain the political power though
in President Thieu?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Not necessarily. They are
members of the legislative body, not the executive branch.
They are certainly the only ones that could assume that and
still have a caretaker government. They were elected by
their constituents.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:29 A.M. EST)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 28, 1972
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
10:25 A.M. EST
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership meeting this morning
lasted over two hours. The meeting was devoted to an assess-
ment of the legislation now before the Congress, a review of
the status of the legislation, and also a discussion of the
economy and the President's economic program.
Senator Scott and Congressman Ford will give you
a report. Senator Scott.
SENATOR SCOTT: There was considerable discussion
this morning on the status of legislation in the Congress,
and while some legislation has come down, such as the tax
reform and Selective Service legislation, most of the major
requests of the President have been deferred by the congres-
sional Majority, which has been spinning its wheels and
busily conducting a number of footless and quasi-irrelevant
investigations for the purpose of concealing their real
inactivity on the matters which affect the people of this
country.
The need is for the revenue sharing programs, for
welfare reforms. If some of you have seen one of the news
magazines, you will notice about one-fourth of the people on
welfare are either receiving money they are not entitled
to or not receiving as much as they are entitled to, and we
need this welfare reform. We need revenue sharing. We need
Government reorganization. We need higher education legis-
lation.
We need all of these things which are being in-
appropriately delayed by a politically .minded Congress.
After all, this is 1972. Both parties, of course, are
subject to the charge of being terribly politically involved.
It is a bad time to get good legislation. There is only
about three months before the Democrats meet in apologia
at Miami Beach to explain, in the vicinity of Ringling
Brothers, Barnum & Bailey, their reasons for offering rival
attractions.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: That is a very hard act to
follow, Hugh. (Laughter)
Let me just supplement a comment or two by Senator
Scott on the legislative program.
In January of 1971, the President asked the Congress
to act on welfare reform, revenue sharing, .Government reorgani-
zation, and shortly thereafter he urged the Congress to act
MORE
- 2 -
on crippling strike legislation in the transportation field,
and nothing has happened in any one of these areas.
This is almost a year and a half after the Presi-
dent's recommendations. We are getting down to the wire on
how much longer time the Congress has to do something in these
areas. Now, for the benefit of the country, I think we need
action in each of these areas.
If the Congress, after this two-year span follow-
ing the President's recommendations, doesn't act,for, I think,
various and sundry reasons, including politics, each of these
issues will be potentially a political issue in the campaign
of 1972. We would rather have the legislation, but I think
if we don't get it out of a Democratic Congress, they are
legitimate areas of politics.
Now, one other comment: We spent a considerable
amount of time on the status of the busing problem. We
would hope that out of the conference on the higher education
bill and the emergency school aid bill, there could be some
action to have a moratorium in the various courts that are
now in the process of acting. But it is more important to
get out of the Committee on the Judiciary in the House, and
I guess in the Senate, and the Education and Labor Committee
in the House, affirmative action on the President's total
package so that busing can be stopped now, both by the mora-
torium as well as the substantive legislation, with additional
money going into those disadvantaged areas where we have to
provide quality education.
One other comment: Dr. Stein did give us a review
of the economic situation. As you know, the President indicated
we would have a $100 billion increase in GNP, and unemployment
toward the end of the year would be down to 5 percent or less,
and that we would have the cost of living down between 2 and
3 percent. Well, the reports are all good. Housing starts
are up. Interest rates for the conventional mortgages are
declining. Plant expenditures are up 10-1/2 percent since
August. Retail sales are up. The consumer confidence index
is very encouraging.
If you look at unemployment from August of 1971 to
the last report, we have gone from 6 percent to 5.7 percent,
and in the area of inflation, despite the purely political
charge of Senator Humphrey on Sunday, where he said the cost
of living had gone up 5 percent, that is not accurate. The
cost of living since the imposition of the wage-price freeze
has gone up 1.4 percent, which, as I understand it, is a
1.7 percent increase.
The program is working, and the results, I think,
will be increasingly evident in the months ahead.
SENATOR SCOTT: Mr. Stein has commented, you know,
in regard to the releases coming from the Democratic National
Committee, that what seems to be operating down there is
O'Brien's Law, namely, that no good news is possible.
Q
Senator, does the President agree with you that
the ITT hearings are irrelevant and that votes should be
taken on the Kleindienst nomination?
MORE
- 3 -
SENATOR SCOTT: This was not brought up this
morning, but I would think that most logical men and women
would agree that this has been a frantic exercise in continuing
irrelevancy, non-germaneness and hearsay evidence pursued to
the fourth degree.
Q
You referred to irrelevant investigations in
the plural. What else is going on that is irrelevant in
Congress?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think we are going to investigate
Chile next. There are investigations by Mr. Proxmire which
occur at the rate of about three a day, as near as I can
count. While the Senator is waiting for his hair to grow
back in, he is keeping himself busy being warmed by the
television spotlights. (Laughter)
Q Mr. Ford, can I ask you about this optimistic
report on the economy? First of all, I am a little confused
by what the "consumer confidence index" is.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Two services, one the Sindlinger
Service, which is a private professional poll-taking organiza-
tion, and the University of Michigan group that has been
doing the same over the last 10 years or more, according to
the latest surveys made by both, the consumer confidence
index has been going up very encouragingly. This, of course,
has been one of the problems in the early days of the Presi-
dent's new economic policy.
But the latest surveys are very, very encouraging.
If this continues, and I think it will -- I think all of
the forecasts, the $100 billion GNP, the 5 percent or less
unemployment, 2 or 3 percent increase in the cost of living,
will all come to fruition or will be in the making by the
time of the election in 1972 -- it certainly will have a
beneficial impact on the results in November.
Q Can I ask you another question in that general
area? How do you and Senato Scott feel about the rise in
meat prices? Are you as happy about that as Secretary of
Agriculture Butz is?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I went to the supermarket
Saturday and it was a little discouraging. But I think,
according to the latest figures, there is a stabilization of
meat prices and the forecasts are that they will tend to fall
off.
The truth is, and I think Secretary Connally is
getting to the root of the problem tomorrow -- he is having
some of the food retailers in for a meeting and he is going
to point out, and I think effectively, that their margins
have been going up. That contributes as much, if not more,
than any increases to the farmer. The farmer only gets about
one-third, as I understand the figures, in the meat area, out
of the total amount paid by the consumer. The profit margin
and the mark-ups between the farmer and the consumer, that has
been more of a problem than the increase to the farmer him-
self.
MORE
- 4 -
SENATOR SCOTT: The farmer's income has not been
going up as fast as the city dweller, and contributing to
these costs, which everybody deplores, have been the in-
creased labor costs for transportation and processing.
There have been the mark-ups of innumerous middlemen, and
as a result, eggs, if you add a little bread and coffee to
them at the Pierre, are about $30 a dozen. The farmer gets
about 30 cents a dozen for the same eggs, so I don't think
the farmer should bear the brunt.
Q
Is Connally going to tell the retailers that
there will be new controls or the Government is prepared
to take some action?
SENATOR SCOTT: Secretary Connally is going to
say that the Administration will be closely watching this
whole price situation with an eye to determining whether it
calls for any action along that line. He will go into more
detail on that tomorrow.
But the actual cost of living and the inflation
index are both slowing down. The rise in food prices is
believed to be a largely seasonal thing. It is certainly
unfortunate, and I do not blame people who go to the super-
market. Gerry and I both do some of our own shopping and we
have seen it for ourselves.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Senator Scott, if the inflation index is going
down, how do you explain the largest increase in six months in
the seasonally adjusted Cost of Living Index?
SENATOR SCOTT: The GNP price deflator shows that
inflation is going down.
Q
I asked about the Consumer Price Index.
SENATOR SCOTT: I am probably not the one to answer
these economic questions because I can't balance my own check-
book. But the Consumer Price Index rose at a seasonally
adjusted 1.7 percent annual rate during the August to November
freeze. It followed a 5.9 percent rise in 1970 and declined
4.3 percent for all of 1971. For the three months since
October, the CPI has risen at a 3.3 percent annual rate. For
all the commodities except food the prices have risen at a
2.1 percent annual rate from October to January and food is
not controlled.
Q
Senator, are you satisfied that the ITT investi-
gation has reached its conclusions and that whatever was the
purpose of the inquiry is over? Is that your point?
SENATOR SCOTT: The ITT has long since climbed past
its perihelion. Actually, they have completely lost sight of
Mr. Kleindienst. Whole days go by when his name doesn't even
get mentioned. There is no evidence whatever to indicate that
Mr. Kleindienst is other than qualified. There has never been
any evidence from any witness that he had any connection with
the contributions of ITT to the City of San Diego. There will
be a movement,as soon as the Committee meets in Executive Session,
to terminate these hearings and go on with the proceedings
already on the calendar for the confirmation of Mr. Kleindienst.
If the Committee wishes to go into other matters
later, they will have to compete on stage with the Foreign
Relations Committee which is slavering to get into the act
and drooling at all corners of its collective mouth, and they
want front and center stage. I think Judiciary owes them that
opportunity to perform.
Q Then you don't think that there is any legitimacy
in the American people finding out actually what happened in
connection with the charges against ITT?
SENATOR SCOTT: There is plenty of legitimacy in
the American people finding out whatever happens with conglomerates
and with the contributions of Jake the Factor relating to two
leading Democratic candidates, with the activities of Bobby
Baker in relation to ITT, with the settlement, mysteriously,
of the Anheuser-Busch case in a previous Administration, follow-
ing which, six days later, the Democratic National Committee
received $10,000 by no coincidence.
It is helpful to know whether Senator Muskie intends
to return the money he received from Mr. Rohatyn, I believe it
was, an ITT contributor and a member of his campaign committee.
Yes, if you want all these things, give the public
the facts on all sides of it, for heaven's sake, but why hold
up Mr. Kleindienst as hostage to the political prejudices of
Larry O'Brien's four horsemen.
MORE
- 6 -
Q
Do you know when you and Senator Mansfield
will go to China?
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't know yet. We are working
on dates. Maybe late in April; something like that.
Q
You predicted that the President's GNP, unem-
ployment and inflation forecast would all come to fruition
by the '72 election. Is this Dr. Stein's forecast also?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: He did not talk about it in those
terms, but he did indicate that all of the prophets of doom
and gloom who had some reservations about the Administration's
forecasts in these three areas were now changing their tune
and agreeing with the Administration that these objectives
probably would be accomplished in 1972.
Q
Is the election the goal?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No. The President's forecasts
in his economic message were at the end of calendar year 1972.
Dr. Stein talked about those objectives in relation-
ship to the end of '72. I interjected the November date and
I think history tells us that if all of those objectives are
being achieved by the end of 1972, they will have an impact
on the November election. I think all of the indicators are
moving in that direction and they definitely will be favorable
from the point of view of the Administration politically.
MORE
- 7 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I think the American people are
entitled to know something else, too: that is, whether or
not the Senate and the Judiciary Committee can be held cap-
tive by the political activities and aspirations of four
Senators for an indefinite period, one of whom suggested
going on for at least six months, on television last night;
whether or not the American people are not entitled to know
whether a Cabinet officer nominated by the President is
entitled to have his nomination debated on the Floor of the
Senate, or whether it is to be indefinitely filibustered and
stalled.
The American people are entitled to know whether
or not the Senate Judiciary Committee is being used for
political purposes or whether this is a genuine investigation.
The American people are entitled to know that 32
percent of the testimony has been made necessary by a single
Senator. The American people are entitled to know whether
Mrs. Beard, for example, is to be further harassed or whether
or not the rest of her testimony can be obtained by inter-
rogatories, and that aspect of the investigation which has
no relevance to Mr. Kleindienst can also be concluded.
Q
Senator Scott, if Richard Kleindienst did go
before the Senate and his confirmation would be considered,
do you think he would be confirmed now?
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes, I think he would be confirmed.
I think various Presidential candidates have lost their nerve
under the usual question and answer period, and one by one,
each of them are abdicating themselves and abdicating their
responsibility. I have forgotten which one, there are so
many, but one of them indicated he didn't know what the facts
were, but he didn't think he would vote for him.
I remember who he was now. The one who can't
make up his mind.
Q
Why don't you name him?
SENATOR SCOTT: Muskie. He said maybe he would
change his mind when he got back to the Senate. There is a
good deal of that going on. They are simply trying to give
the popular answer to the kind of questioners that they have
to submit to. This whole business of running for political
office is a little degrading anyway, because all of us at
times do some indulging in a similar form of jackassery.
Q
Are you up this time?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am not up this time. That is why
I can probably be so candid about it. But jackassery it is,
and I so designate it.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:45 A.M. EST)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 13, 1972
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
S/B
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
10:00 A.M. EDT
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership meeting this morning
started promptly at 8:00 o'clock and lasted until 9:45.
Senator Scott and Congressman Ford are here to give
you a report on the meeting. Senator Scott.
SENATOR SCOTT: The President indicated that he is
sending up the treaties and the Executive Agreement resulting
from the Moscow conference. We have been able to assure him,
which was evident after the meeting down here recently, that there
is strong bipartisan support of what the President has accom-
plished.
Time is of the essence in order to get on with
SALT II and limitation of armaments generally. It is my
understanding that the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, Senator Fulbright, is prepared to move expeditiously
on the treaty and is ready to go on with hearings. We had a
meeting of the committee where this was discussed.
I would like to mention, too, that I believe that
any attempt to cut defense appropriations along the lines some
are suggesting would be a very grave error. For example, if
you cut back the Sixth Fleet, you would seriously upset the
balance in the Middle East. You would destroy hopes for any
future arms limitation agreements; unilateral disarmers and
neo-isolationists would leave no hope that the Soviets would
negotiate further. And on the so-called Mansfield Amendment,
this is one of the most unfortunate and, I believe, ill-
grounded proposals that we have had on any of these military
programs for several reasons.
In the first place, just at the moment when it is
becoming clear, even to the most skeptical, that the South
Vietnamese are hacking it over there -- and in any other war I
imagine the lifting of the seige of An Loc would be tremendous
news, for example -- that at a time like this, one of the most
critical times in this whole period of our involvement, to
seek to remove all ground forces by August would do irreparable
damage to any hopes of negotiation whatsoever, would blow the
Paris peace talks out of the water, in my opinion, should this
become law.
Moreover, the resolution is drawn in a rather start-
ling fashion. It undertakes to have us negotiate not with
North Vietnam, but with the Viet Cong, as if North Vietnam had
no connection with this war. The language is clearly language
ORD
MORE
GERALD
LIBRARY
- 2 -
which Hanoi could welcome because of its restriction to
the Viet Cong. It does not provide for an internationally
supervised cease-fire; it simply says "verified cease-fire"
as to Vietnam, and does not say how it shall be verified.
It would leave the whole question of prisoners of war
very fuzzy. Most people have forgotten that following the
French withdrawal, that Ho Chi Minh undertook to return the
prisoners of war and the missing in action. There were over
30,000 of them. Only about 10,800 were returned. Two-thirds
of them were never returned or accounted for.
On a cease-fire, it ought to be remembered that in
Korea there was no substantial return of prisoners until after
there had been an effective cease-fire. Unless you have an end-
the-killing agreement here, you are not going to get those
prisoners of war back. Any argument to the contrary simply
will not hold water.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We also discussed the situation as
far as revenue sharing is concerned. Of course, the Democratic
Leadership surprised everybody by pulling the revenue sharing
bill from consideration on the Floor today and tomorrow. I was
extremely disappointed in the timidity of the Democratic
Leadership in not going ahead with the revenue sharing proposal.
The Republican head count shows we have approximately
105 firm Republican commitments for a closed rule, which is a
high percentage out of our 178. If the Democrats had 105 out of
255, there would be no doubt that we could get a closed rule
and revenue sharing would be approved by the House of Repre-
sentatives this week.
There is a meeting called by the Speaker this after-
noon where apparently he is going to try and firm up the Demo-
cratic commitments. We are going to the meeting, and we are
going to report to him that our batting average in this regard
is good and we hope that this meeting will produce the neces-
sary votes on the Democratic side, because this legislation is
the keystone of the President's efforts to do something about
the problem of ever-increasing local taxes, particularly local
real estate taxes.
If the Congress doesn't act on this legislation, and
local taxes, particularly real estate taxes, continue to go up,
I think there will be some political repercussions. So we hope
to get the legislation through the House. It has now been
scheduled for next Wednesday and next Thursday. It could have
been through this week if the Democratic Leadership had been
able to produce the necessary votes on the rule as well as on
the bill.
This morning the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
is meeting on the so-called "End The War" Amendment. We
strongly oppose what has been drafted by the Democratic
majority members, I gather primarily Congressman Rosenthal.
The Rosenthal Amendment, or the Democratic proposal, is the
wrong amendment at the wrong time. If approved, it will
seriously undercut the President's efforts to end the war in
Vietnam either by military efforts or through negotiation.
MORE
- 3 -
The Rosenthal Amendment is not the answer to get-
ting the prisoners of war back. The Democratic resolution, as
it was proposed in the committee, is not the way to end the
killing, and it is not the way to protect the lives of some
60,000 Americans still in Vietnam. The committee proposal as
it is being considered this morning appeals only and I say
with emphasis "only" -- to the unilateral disarmers, and also has
a great appeal to the so-called "new isolationists." We hope
to either change it or beat it, or delay it, because we think
the President's approach is infinitely better.
SENATOR SCOTT: On the Mansfield Amendment, the same
thing could be said. It is the wrong amendment at the wrong
time.
The Senate Finance Committee, I believe, reports
H.R. 1 out to the Floor today. I hope that the Senate will act
responsibly on H.R. 1, because if they do not, and then the
Democrats meet in convention and attempt to adopt some sort
of a platform plank on welfare reform without ever acting when
they have the chance to act responsibly, that would be the
height of hypocrisy, and they will be held accountable for it.
Q Senator Mansfield (Laughter)
I am sorry. Senator Scott.
SENATOR SCOTT: He is my friend.
2
On your opening statement, you said the Presi-
dent was sending up treaties today. I was under the impression
that there was only a treaty, and this is a little confusing.
SENATOR SCOTT: We are referring to the treaty on the
defensive arms and the Executive Agreement on offensive arms.
I don't believe he is sending up the health treaty, is he?
MR. ZIEGLER: The treaty that is going up today is the
treaty relating to the defensive systems; and also included in
the material going up today will be information relating to the
Executive Agreement which the President will ask the Congress
to give their support to through the passing of a resolution.
Q That is what I really was concerned about. That
is not, strictly speaking, a treaty, is it?
MR. ZIEGLER: That is not a treaty; it is an Execu-
tive Agreement entered into by the Executive. As the President
said, he will seek the approval of the Congress in the form
of the passage of a resolution.
Q And that applies only to offensive weapons,
and he doesn't have to do it?
MR. ZIEGLER: That applies to only the offensive
weapon agreement, and it is not required by law. It is simply
the intent of the President to have this agreement supported by
the Congress and discussed thoroughly by the Congress.
Q Without belaboring it, I thought there was
part of the Act that created the Disarmament Agency that did
require agreements to be approved by Congress.
MORE
- 4 -
MR. ZIEGLER: That is not the case.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it can be argued, but I
think the President felt that he wanted to maximize Congres-
sional consideration and Congressional approval, so the agree-
ment is going up and it will be most likely referred in the
House to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, because of the
tieback to the disarmament legislation. It will go the Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs, and from all I can find out, it
looks like it will get rapid, thorough and favorable considera-
tion, and I think that will happen in the House as well.
Q
Senator Scott, is there enough opposition to
the ABM treaty and the interim agreement to delay seriously
the ratification of the treaty?
SENATOR SCOTT: No. I think the treaty will be
treated separately, and hearings are likely to be expeditious
and I would expect prompt Senate action. The Executive Agree-
ment will take longer, and I do not know which House will act
first on that. The Senators generally talk longer, and you
would expect they might lag behind the House a little bit.
Q
Do you have a target date for the treaty?
SENATOR SCOTT: We have no target date except "expe-
ditious action," because as soon as it is acted upon, the
sooner our representatives can get on with other and equally
desirable agreements.
Q
Both of you mentioned those who advocate uni-
lateral disarmament. Did you have anybody particularly in
mind?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't have anybody particularly
in mind, but there are some who have offered amendments and have
voted consistently to slash the defense budget. If you look
at the facts and figures, in effect it means over the next
five years our defense posture will be seriously jeopardized.
There is a hard core in the House, somewhere between
30 and 50, who are on this binge. I think it would be tragic
if the House and Congress went along with it, but I do not
think they will.
MORE
- 5 -
Q Senator Scott, I was thinking you might be
thinking of one of your colleagues in the Senate who is also a
candidate for the Democratic nomination.
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't know. Hanoi indicates now
and then that some Senators are "more flexible" than others in
their attitudes toward the problems of the Vietnamese War. I
would say that whatever Senators have identified themselves as
so highly flexible, that perhaps they are the ones I meant. The
truth is that nothing succeeds like success. The President's
program in Vietnam is succeeding and I have said this many
times.
The Senate is frantic in its effort to try to
convince the American people that they are the ones who can
settle the war,, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
Only the President can end this war. So, they are devising
every sort of gimmick they can think of to say to the American
people, "If you only left it to us we would get you out sooner."
It is equivalent to Senator McGovern's rather fatuous statement
that if you simply pulled all American forces out. he knows that
the prisoners of war will be released. It is too bad that it is
too late to ask Premier Mendes France that because Mendes France
probably told the French people that he knew he would get the
prisoners of war, too, and he got one-third of them because he
trusted the Ho Chi Minh government.
Q
Senator, what evidence do you have on the
other side of this that continuing with the President's program
will get the prisoners back?
SENATOR SCOTT: We know it is the only way by which
you will get the prisoners back. Prisoners have normally been
returned following a cease-fire. They have not necessarily
waited for a peace agreement. The difficulty here is the un-
willingness of some Members of Congress to include an inter-
nationally supervised cease-fire. That is the only way we got
the prisoners back in Korea, when we had a cease-fire and proved
it was effective. The provision merely for a so-called
"verified cease-fire", leaving it up to Hanoi's word as to what
verifies the cease-fire, and to restrict the cease-fire only
to the United States and the Viet Cong, is a highly unrealistic
approach.
Q Your reading of history rather intrigues me.
What happened to the two-thirds of the French prisoners?
Are you maintaining that they are still in Vietnam?
SENATOR SCOTT: We don't know what happened to them.
The Hanoi Ho Chi Minh government never accounted for them. They
were never returned. It is strange credibility to believe that
two-thirds of the prisoners of war left consisted entirely of miss-
ing-in-action, and otherwise unaccounted for. Hanoi never gave
an accounting and of the 30,000 some 10,800, as I recall the
figure, were returned. Nothing was ever heard of the others.
Q You said the President's program is working and
you said that the South Vietnamese are hacking it. I think
Congressman Ford said that we were going to win, either militarily
or by a negotiated peace. Could the South Vietnamese hack it,
so-called, without our massive naval and air armadas going in
there and actually, does the President see an end to this war
before the election?
MORE
- 6 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I can't speak for the President on
that, obviously. Whether the war ends before the election depends
on whether Hanoi is willing to negotiate a peace or whether it
concludes that it cannot win one on the battlefield or both.
The success of the Vietnamese is, of course, in
part due to the support given by American forces in the air
and on the sea. At some point it is the expectation that that
kind of aid will no longer be necessary to enable them to hold
on to their own country. But for the present it is essential that
that aid be given because Hanoi has involved all of its divisions
in an all-out attempt to conquer, by invasion, the South Vietnamese.
The South Vietnamese are not only holding, but they are gaining
ground and they are lifting sieges at An Loc and Kontum and all
of the pessimistic prognostications of two or three months ago
are being proven wrong as of now.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would like to make a correction.
I did not use the words "winning the war" or "would win the war"
or "military victory." I repeat that I said the President's
program would either lead to success in negotiations or success
militarily.
Q
What does that mean?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It means that the North Vietnamese
are not able to achieve what they set out to do, to make a smash-
ing military accomplishment in South Vietnam. Obviously, they
have not. Their capability is degenerating very seriously and
the South Vietnamese are doing infinitely better. When you have
this set of circumstances, it helps to generate the kind of
atmosphere that, in my judgment -- and I say "my judgment" --
would lead to progress at the negotiating table.
Q
How far away, then, sir, do you see us from a
military victory?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I have never said that the United
States was aiming at a military victory. We are aiming at the
kind of military success that would lead to an effective
negotiated settlement.
Q You are saying, Congressman, that you would
expect serious negotiations to begin fairly soon, then?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It seems to me that that is the
best and quickest road to success. I was delighted to see that
Ambassador Porter is willing to go back and meet with the North
Vietnamese negotiators. The President made a very generous offer.
It is an offer that I think they ought to accept.
Q
Do you see any indication that Porter's return
to Paris and his more conciliatory attitude was influenced by
anything from Hanoi recently?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I have no way of knowing that.
I would hope that the North Vietnamese, bearing in mind the
military problems they are having, would now realize that the
best way to end this conflict is to negotiate.
MORE
- 7 -
Q
Both of you gentlemen talked a bit about what
you called "unilateral disarmers" and "neo-isolationists." Do
you expect these terms to recur during the campaign this Fall?
Do you think this will be an issue?
SENATOR SCOTT: I would expect the terminology to
recur. I think the isolationist of the left is fully as blind
as the ancient isolationist of the right in previous times. I
think that as long as some contend that you can trust the enemy
and as long as some say we should simply withdraw without any
effort to protect the position that we undertook to protect, that
it would be just to refer to them as "neo-isolationists" and
"unilateral disarmers." Anyone who proposes to withdraw
unilaterally is withdrawing arms and he is doing it unilaterally
and therefore he is a unilateral disarmer. I think it follows.
They will have to live with these terms if they seek to impose
these harsh terms on the United States by statute.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: If I might add, I think a great
deal depends on how successful the Democratic efforts are to get
the President's military program, the need for the Trident or
ULMS submarine program, the President's request for the neces-
sary funding for the two ABM sites, and the President's program
for the B-1 bomber. And in addition, if there are some who try
to tear apart and destroy the President's military assistance
program, because if we end up with no capability, the United
States is stripped of any opportunity or capability of helping
allies, then the United States, in effect, is withdrawing and
becoming isolationist.
So we have to maintain our own military strength
and help those other nations who are willing to stand up. So it
depends, really, on what the Congress does in this session. If
the people who want to gut both programs are successful, I think
you will find some strong statements, and properly so, against
those who want to be the 1970 isolationists and the 1970 "Fortress
America" people.
Q
I wonder if you have a name for a General who
takes the country's laws into his own hands and bombs the North
without orders?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think :
handled that matter under the proper circumstances.
Q
Secretary Laird said the other day that he
would not support the arms limitation agreements unless the
Congress passed the legislation supporting the bombers and
submarine construction program. Is that the view of the
Leadership?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think that is somewhat taken out
of context. I think the Secretary of Defense was making the
point that these are complimentary programs, and that one without
the other doesn't make a great deal of sense. The defense of
the United States depends on those matters where we have agreed
with Russia, for example, to make certain mutual commitments,
and that the mutuality of those commitments and the strength of
the United States under the arms program are interdependent.
MORE
- 8 -
Q You are saying you would not support the
treaties without the complimentary program?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am saying what I said, and no
more.
Q But I am asking a new question.
SENATOR SCOTT: The new question doesn't throw any
light on the old question. I am afraid I cannot answer beyond
that.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think what we have to do, if I
might supplement Hugh's comment, I think we have to work to the
maximum to see to it that the treaty and agreement are approved
and also seek to get the necessary funding for all of the pro-
grams, and it is difficult to determine at this stage which
will come first.
Our objective is the accomplishment of both, the
adequate funding of both the foreign aid military legislation
and appropriations as well as the approval of the treaty and
Executive Agreement.
Q
On another subject, I am wondering if either
of you gentlemen would care to defend the President's failure
to hold a formal press conference in more than a year?
SENATOR SCOTT: That is hardly our function. Mr.
Ziegler is here to answer those questions. The President has
been before the people of the United States in many different
ways. I would suggest that you take that up with Mr. Ziegler.
Q We have. (Laughter)
SENATOR SCOTT: He is just across the hall. We will
bring him over.
MR. ZIEGLER: I didn't know UPI had television. Don,
your reference to a formal press conference is referring to
television; right? As you know, the President has had several
press conferences in his office in the past year.
Q
I would be willing to submit questions in
writing at this point.
MR. ZIEGLER: We will have the material we referred
to in 15 minutes.
Q What will that be?
MR. ZIEGLER: We will have a full package that I
will explain. It is quite extensive.
SENATOR SCOTT: I want to thank you for not asking
me any questions on Senator McGovern's position. If you will
just defer that for a few weeks, he will change his position
and we can answer it then.
END
(AT 10:30 A.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 8, 1972
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD F. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:30 A.M. EDT
MR. WARREN: The Leadership Meeting this morning
began at 8:00 and lasted for approximately two hours and
20 minutes. It was a good extensive meeting and I will
let Senator Scott and Congressman Ford describe it to you.
Senator.
SENATOR SCOTT: Ladies and gentlemen, Jerry and
I had asked for a report on the economy and so we heard
from Herb Stein and Cap Weinberger on that, and a number of
points were made, particularly on all of the recent good news
in the economy.
There has been a 4-1/2 million increase in peace-
time jobs and a 2-1/2 million decrease in wartime jobs
in this Administration. Some of our questioning brought
out the fact that the McGovern budget, as reflected in
the Democratic platform and as moderated to that extent,
would still mean an increase in budget costs of $144 billion.
If you leave in the $1,000 program for everybody, for which
Senator McGovern at one time was for a thousand percent, that
would be another $189 billion or a total of $333 billion.
The total $333 billion would mean 50 percent or a
tax of about half the income for most families in America.
They would be making more for the government than for
themselves and the $1,000 would add 80 million people to
the welfare roles, but if you confine yourself simply to
the platform figures and the more moderate sum of $144
billion, it will mean an increase in taxes, in inflation
and in unemployment. And the achievements of this Adminis-
tration would be erased because of the irresponsibility
of such a radical budget.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: After hearing the report on
the situation as far as the McGovern budget is concerned,
and even the Democratic platform budget, the President
reiterated his strong support for a $250 billion spending
limitation. The $250 billion spending limitation was
submitted to the Congress about a week ago. This is the
best insurance against a tax increase.
MORE
(ower)
- 2 -
Now, if you take the Democratic platform budget
figures, as Hugh has pointed out, it would add about $144
billion over the $250 billion and if you take the McGovern
budget, as he proposed it during his campaign to get the
nomination, it would add up to a total of about $330 billion
over the $250 billion.
Now the President's $250 billion spending limitation
is the best insurance against the tax increase and, of course,
this Administration is against any tax increase.
In the House of Representatives, we are getting
growing support for this spending limitation. There are
Democrats in the House of Representatives who are concerned
about the excessive spending proposed in their own platform
and they are deeply concerned about the added spending,
and, of course, the necessities for a tax increase if the
McGovern economic policies are proposed and approved and
if the McGovern budget is a reality.
So, sometime within the next week or so, and if
not, after the Republican Convention, in the House of
Representatives we are going to make a substantial effort
to impose a $250 billion spending ceiling which will
preclude the need and necessity for a tax increase.
If we are unsuccessful, and if the McGovern budget
and the Democratic platform budget is approved and in effect
by this Congress, the prospects for a tax increase are
obvious and, of course, the American people are opposed to
them.
Let me just reiterate to some extent some of the
figures that Hugh used. If you have the McGovern budget,
the average working family's tax increase at the federal
level will be approximately $2,500. That is an increase
over what he is paying today under this Administration.
If you use the Democratic platform budget, the
average working family of four will have a tax increase of
approximately $1,000. But if we impose the $250 billion
spending limitation, which President Nixon recommended,
it obviates the need and necessity for a tax increase.
SENATOR SCOTT: I would like to add, too, that
under the Nixon Administration fiscal policies, the savings
in personal income tax which taxpayers didn't have to
pay, have taken 9-1/2 million families off the tax roles.
Q
Senator, as a practical matter, do you
think that McGovern, even if he were elected President,
would be able to put this kind of budget proposal into
effect?
SENATOR SCOTT: Of course, it is a heck of a
way to run a campaign to say, "I propose to spend many
billions of dollars, but don't believe me, because the Congress
won't let me have it." That is the height of irresponsibility,
but I think that is what Senator McGovern was doing when he
tried to cut $4 billion in the budget.
MORE
- 3 -
That was a little sample swatch off the whole
cloth from which he hoped to show that when he couldn't
even carry his own party and lost 59 to 33 on the $4
billion, it is like his letter to the Wall Street Journal:
"Don't pay attention to what I am going to say, I am going
to promise everybody everything, but Congress will be
responsible if I am not and they will see that you don't
get it." That is a pretty odd way to run a campaign. But
I think that is why he proposed that cut.
Q Are you ruling out a tax increase for next
year, also? I mean if they hit this so-called ceiling?
SENATOR SCOTT: The two gentlemen we talked to
this morning did not think a tax increase would be necessary
in the period you mentioned, because they expect to hold
the budget down and it will be necessary possibly for the
President to veto some measures if the Congress does not
act responsibly. So they do not expect tax increases, but
under McGovern, they are a certainty.
Q Senator, my recollection of the Democratic
platform is that it did not provide precise budget figures.
I was wondering, one, who calculated the "Democratic
platform budget figures," and two, if you could break down
the increase in spending that adds up to $144 billion.
SENATOR SCOTT: We will have a full breakdown sent
up to us. First, it was calculated by Dr. Weinberger of the
Office of Management and Budget, and by Herb Stein and it is
a real problem to try to break down the platform, because it
is calculated to make people think they are getting more
in promises than they will get in performance, but some
of the items would add, with the government as an employer
of first resort, $12 billion in cost. To insure the
guaranteed income policy, $25 billion. Educational increases
under intrastate equalization, $9.2 billion. Lowering the
retirement eligibility, $5 billion. Nursing homes, $3
billion. The McGovern health program, $60 billion plus.
The full funding of all programs, $26 billion,
and I will have a memo in the next 48 hours on the remaining
items in the $144 billion.
Q
Is it the role of the Budget Director
to make a campaign attack?
SENATOR SCOTT: Budget Directors are like weather
forecasters, they report the good weather and in the present
Administration they have to report when the storms and the
Hurricane Agnes type of thing will happen. McGovern is
equated with Hurricane Agnes as a national disaster, in my
opinion. They have to do this if we ask. them and Jerry
and I asked them to project the horrors which could be
anticipated under this threatened blight on the economy.
Q Well, Senator, did Weinberger or Stein in
virtually promising no tax increase if this Administration
continues in office also talk to you about what the budget
deficit would be, say, for the follow-on fiscal year and
the fiscal year beyond that?
MORE
- 4 -
SENATOR SCOTT: We did not discuss the detailed
figures of future budget deficits. You have information
showing that the present anticipated deficit is less than
originally forecast. We do not know what the Congress will
do yet, or how responsible the Congress will be, and
therefore to go on into the future, '73, '74 situations,
you have to know how much the Congress will hold down
the spending and whether or not you get the spending
limitation and what vetoes, if any, the President exercises
and whether or not they will be overriden.
Q
Do either of you gentlemen expect if there is
no tax increase next year or the year after that, which
Administration spokesmen have virtually promised, that
this government can operate without a substantial budget
deficit beyond full employment concept?
SENATOR SCOTT: The 80th and 83rd Congresses were the
only Republican Congr eases you can go by and they pretty
well lived up to that and give us a Republican Congress
and we will live up to it again.
Q
I am asking a very serious question.
SENATOR SCOTT: I am giving you a serious answer.
Q
You had a couple of very large deficits.
You have another large deficit coming and you are promising
no tax increase and there are certain built-in increases
in government programs that neither the White House nor Congress
can control, unless you compare this to legislative massive
roll-back of federal programs and my question again is,
do you seriously suggest that you can have a promise
of no tax increase and still not talk about the possibility
of continued large federal deficits?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am replying by saying first,
some of it depends on the responsibility of Congress.
Second, the income of this country is increasing and
4-1/2 million potential taxpayers are being added to
the economic situation. There is a strong and definite
growth at the rate presently of about nine percent -- it may
not be maintained quite that high, but in that area -- all
of which increases the tax revenues of the country.
Now I say to you if we have a Republican Congress,
yes, we can do it. If we have a responsible Democratic
Congress, we can do it. If we have a Congress that overrides
the President's vetoes, then they will have to take the
responsibility if a tax increase insues.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Hugh, may I respond in part
to the question. If we have a $250 billion spending
limitation, the prospects for a deficit of the
magnitude that has been talked about in the past will be
lessened, because in the interim, in fiscal year 1972, our
economic conditions are improving.
MORE
- 5 -
As Hugh pointed out, more and more people are
working. I think in the last 12 months about 2-1/2 million
more people are working. The economic figures, the corporate
income figures are very, very encouraging and that has to
have a plus impact on the revenues, as far as the Federal
Government is concerned.
So, as the economic conditions improve, and they
are improving, both for the worker and for our businesses,
and if we are successful in imposing a responsible spending
limitation, I think in fiscal 1973 the prospects for the
deficit going down are very, very encouraging. I am not
saying we won't have a deficit, but without a spending
limitation, and with a Congress that in some respects today
is acting irresponsibly on spending, the prospects for an
increased deficit and the need for taxes goes up.
Now, in fiscal '72, I think it is premature to make
any forecast, but the first step is to put the spending
limitation on and we are going to make a massive effort,
as far as the House of Representatives is concerned,
and we have some encouraging reports from responsible
Democrats in the House that they are as concerned as we
are and I think we can be successful in that regard in the
House and lay the ground work for a diminishing deficit in
1973 and hopefully with full employment no deficit in
fiscal '74.
Q
Are you saying that the budget people can make
very specific projections on the hypothetical McGovern
budget, but cannot even give you raw figures on its own
budget?
SENATOR SCOTT: The Administration is giving
you the figures on its own budget in accordance with the
law and in the framework of time when they are required
to do SO. We asked them to give us as close a figuring
as they could on the McGovern series of proposals, based
on McGovern's own statements. 'And the Democratic platform
generally, I am afraid, has tried to be as indefinite
as possible, but they have committed themselves to those
particular items which I read to you.
If you break these items down, they come very
conservatively to $144 billion. If they do not -- I put
these statements in the public domain -- let me show why
the figures are inaccurate. It depends on, I suppose,
whether they can find some economist who will be as fuzzy
and as hypothetical as their campaign statements.
Q
Senator, did you return to the White House
as unacceptable a letter from the President regarding the
End the War Amendments?
MORE
- 6 -
SENATOR SCOTT: No, I indicated that I had
reservations over a single line, but I later released
it. I didn't want to be quite as rough on my colleagues
as the line indicated, but finally decided that I had to
do that.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:50 A.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 7, 1972
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
10:30 A.M. EDT
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership met this morning for
a little over two hours. As Senator Scott and Congressman
Ford will tell you, they reviewed the status of legislation in
the Congress, talked about that extensively, and the two
leaders are here to talk about that with you and to report
to you on the meeting. Congressman Ford.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I will report on the things that
we believe have to be done before the Congress adjourns. We
believe that there has to be the approval of the SALT agree-
ment which the House has passed, revenue sharing which the
House has passed, the foreign military aid authorization which
the House has passed, naturally the debt ceiling legislation,
the military procurement, military construction authorizations.
They are both in conference. I think there will be some action
today on the one.
We have five appropriation bills, including military
procurement and military construction. We have the prospective
action, following the sustaining of the veto on the Labor-HEW
appropriation bill. We have hopes, of course, that welfare
reform will finally come out of the Congress. It has a very
high priority.
There is the busing moratorium legislation and
the bill that passed the House which is now over in the Senate
involving busing, and this is more urgent now than before
because of the ruling of Justice Powell; pension legislation,
and last, but not least, the $250 billion spending limitation.
That is important because of the actions of the Congress in
adding to the President's budget, and Hugh will comment on
certain aspects of that if we don't pass the spending limi-
tation.
SENATOR SCOTT: First of all, on revenue sharing, we
expect it to pass probably this week. We will vote on some more
amendments beginning today. On the SALT interim agreement,
there is still a blockage on the time agreement, on the Jackson
amendment, but Senator Mansfield has indicated, and I have
joined him in saying, that unless there is an agreement, we
will sometime next week move for cloture.
The examination of the latest McGovern budget on
his "scheme-a-day" proposals reveals -- and this has been put
together by the Republican National Committee and at the re-
quest of the Republican House Conference -- that the new figures,
even after allowing for the removal of the alleged loopholes
MORE
- 2 -
and the cuts in military spending, there would still be a $100
billion excess over the budget, not even costing out certain
programs that are too vague to cost out accurately. The near-
est we could come to the welfare proposal for the working poor
is about $25 billion on top of the $100 billion, and then the
farm income parity, aerospace and defense industries proposals
and the rest.
The net effect would be that in view of the $94 bil-
lion we are receiving from the taxpayers now, and having already
allowed for the so-called loopholes and budget cuts, he would
still have to raise something well over $100 billion, which
would mean a 100 percent increase in taxes to the average tax-
payer.
You can take the average taxpayer as having an income --
or many of them, certainly -- at $12,500 a year, paying $1038
taxes now, and they would pay about $2000 under the McGovern
tax proposals. Of course, if you add in the $1000 a head pro-
posal, you would have another $50 billion. That, of course,
would add many more millions of people on welfare.
The counter-proposal to that, among others, is the
President's $250 billion spending ceiling, which is a vote
against high taxes. It would be my judgment that if we had that
spending ceiling, we would not have any necessity for an in-
crease in taxes, and if we don't have the spending ceiling, the
President would have to veto measures to bring it down to that
area.
The record of the Administration is good. We have
taken 9 million people off the tax rolls while adding $4-1/2
billion of corporate taxes.
I want to commend my friend Tom Eagleton for his
statesmanlike comments on the adventurism of Salinger and Ramsey
Clark in saying that it would have been preferable if they had
not made these trips and made the comments about it. I really
think that McGovern ought to reconvene the Democratic National
Committee and reinstate Tom Eagleton on the ticket. I told
Tom that I am still for him for Vice President.
Meanwhile, we are getting along in the Senate as well
as we can without Senator McGovern. We had votes like the vote
on the sad events in Munich yesterday, and we had votes on
revenue sharing, but we don't mind too much as long as Senator
McGovern can still phone in his votes.
Q
Senator, is that what you discussed with this
President this morning?
SENATOR SCOTT: Some of that, yes. It was a very
relaxed session. I think the most entertaining session I
have attended down here yet.
Q Other than nominating the Democratic Ticket, since
you were talking politics, did you get down to the President's
schedule for campaigning on the Republican ticket?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President feels he will have to
stay in Washington to be available to the Congress and to con-
tinue his communications with them in his hope that they will
be responsive to that.
MORE
- 3 -
Following the departure of Congress, which we would
welcome if it occurs September 30th, which the joint leadership
has indicated as a goal, then I would suppose the President
would be freed for appearances around the country.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I might add that there is agree-
ment between the Democratic and Republican Leadership on both
sides of the Capitol that September 30th is the target date for
adjournment. Now, this list that I read off can be accomplished
by the 30th. It does mean, however, that there has to be some
action in the House as well as the Senate, and it cannot be the
kind of a schedule that has been followed, at least in part, since
our return.
I
Senator, did you get any White House clarifica-
tion on where the White House stands on the Jackson amendment
on SALT?
SENATOR SCOTT: We don't need any clarification on
that. The Administration is for the Jackson amendment. I have
heard in meetings yesterday that Senator Pastore has one inter-
pretation, Senator Jackson has another. I have another. Every
individual Senator interprets these amendments as he sees fit.
If the White House wishes to interpret the same or otherwise,
that is their business.
The main thing is the amendment is written out. It
means what it says. It is supported by the Administration.
One Senator has asked me to repeat that today, a Senator who
is opposed to the Jackson amendment. So I do so.
Q
Senator Scott, is it also the President's view
that Senator McGovern's proposals would mean a 100 percent
increase in personal income taxes?
SENATOR SCOTT: It is a fact. It was discussed with
the President as a fact. I noted no dissent on anyone's part.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Let me add, if I might, a figure or
two which I think is important in coming to the conclusion that
Hugh did.
If you add up all of the specific proposals that
you can price out accurately, it would add $151.4 billion
annually to the Federal budget. Then, if you subtract the
$30 billion which he advocates as a cut in defense spending,
then if you take into account the reduction in revenues based
on his tax proposals of $22 billion, you come up with a figure
of roughly $100 billion increase in spending, or deficit, over and
above what is anticipated at the present time.
SENATOR SCOTT: To which you have to add at least the
$25 billion for the working poor proposals, and there are
four other proposals that we just cannot cost out.
Q
What time period is involved in this costing-out
process?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: This would be the budget that I
assume he would submit in a legislative recommendation if he
took office in January, or whenever he would submit his budget
for fiscal year 1974.
MORE
- 4 -
I Aren't you being a little overly generous to
him when you subtract $30 billion in defense proposals when,
in fact, he has only said he would do $10 billion a year? You
are giving him $20 billion credit.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We are trying to be as conservative
and as cautious as we can. As Hugh said, this is a scheme a
month. Hugh called it a scheme a day. As I recall, the last
time we were here before the Republican convention, we had a
budget then predicated on his various proposals, and that
showed an added deficit of $150-some billion.
Well, in the interim, he has come down now to a
deficit, giving credit for everything in the most conservative
way, of $100 billion. We have two months to go. I applaud his
movement in the right direction, but even $100 billion added
deficit to the taxpayer in the $12,000 bracket means a 100 per-
cent increase in his taxes.
Q Congressman Ford, have you priced out the pro-
posals that President Nixon has made in the same fashion that
you have priced out the proposals that Senator McGovern has made,
and can you give us the figures for the President's programs?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The President's program is in-
cluded in his budget for fiscal year 1973.
Q
What is the projected deficit?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it is $22 billion or $23
billion. If you take that figure and add to it Senator McGovern's
figure in fiscal '73 or fiscal '74, you would be well over
$130 billion.
SENATOR SCOTT: I would not want any of you to take
Senator McGovern's proposals too seriously, because I really
think he wants people to believe he is against everything he
stands for.
Q
Are you sort of shelving the welfare plan?
SRNATOR SCOTT: No. Jerry has said it still has a
high priority with us. We have a Democratic majority in the
Congress. They are in control of all the committees. We want
them to bring it out and pass it. The President wants to sign a
proper and adequate welfare bill.
Q
That would be a guaranteed income bill for the
poor people?
SENATOR SCOTT: It would have the effect of a floor
under income, yes.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: $2400 a year, but with the oppor-
tunity to work their way off of it, with the incentive to do so.
Q
Senator Scott, do you expect that the President's
proposals on busing will pass before September 30th?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, it is difficult to say. The
situation in the Senate is that Senator Ellender and Senator
Griffin and others are doing their best to get the House bill
MORE
LIBRARY
- 5 -
passed. A group of 10 Senators who are opposed to it are
doing their best to see that it doesn't pass. Efforts are
being made now on the part of all parties to try to work out a
time limitation agreement. That will evolve, I would say,
during the next seven days.
Q Senator Scott, later on in the campaign, say
three or four weeks from now, what kinds of appearances and
how many does the President plan on behalf of Republican candi-
dates in the Senate?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President will make that announce-
ment. The indications to us today were that a suitable
announcement will be made, but for the present, he must stay a
little loose while the Congress is in session. He likes to be
here, and he wants to be close to what is happening.
Q
How about the September 30th deadline for
adjournment and the long list of things that still have to be
done? Did the President indicate whether or not he would call
Congress back into session after the November elections?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, he did not.
Q
Do you have any indication?
SENATOR SCOTT: I have no indication on that at all,
one way or the other. It would depend on whether the Congress
has omitted legislation which is vital to the interests or
security of the country.
Q
Is it your understanding, Senator, that the
President will put out his own tax reform plan before the
election?
SENATOR SCOTT: I have no information. Nothing
developed this morning that has to do with any tax legislation.
My observation is that every time McGovern refers to something
as tax reform, it is really a tax increase. I have never been
so certain as I am in this campaign that a vote for McGovern
is a vote for higher taxes, higher spending, higher costs of
everything, and higher unemployment.
MORE
- 6 -
Q
Are you saying the President is not going to
propose new taxes next year?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am saying that if we have the $250
billion spending ceiling and if Congress remains responsible in
its appropriative functions there would be no need for an increase
in taxes.
Q
You brought up the matter of deficits. As I
recall, the President campaigned in 1968 on the promise to have
a balanced budget. Is it going to be an embarrassment this year
for him to campaign on a deficit?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think the President is running on
a full employment budget. I have heard Senator McGovern use the
same terms on different things.
Q
I mean in 1968.
SENATOR SCOTT: The Congress, with a majority of
Democrats, has added a great many things to the President's
budget over and above his requests. He has vetoed a great deal
of them. Some of those vetoes were sustained and some were
overridden. The President does not control the spending in our
system, when the Congress overrides it.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Let me make a comment on the tax
matter. The President said this morning that there will be no
tax increase by this Administration. That was very firm and
very clear.
Q
Is that committing for the next four years in
case he wins re-election or are we only talking about until
January 20th?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The President simply said there
will be no tax increase proposed by this Administration, with
no time limit discussed.
Q
What did he mean by this Administration? Did
he mean his first four years, until January 20th?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I assume that the President will
be re-elected. I therefore put it in the context that there
will be no tax increase proposed following January 20th to the
next Congress.
Q
Even if the $250 billion spending ceiling is not
enacted?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: That would be very, very important
to make sure that the Congress wouldn't have to face up to it.
But the President was very clear in his discussion with us today
that the Administration intends not to submit a tax increase.
Q
That means the value-added tax will not be
proposed, the one that has been bandied around quite a bit.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Senator McGovern and Sarge Shriver
talked as if that were an Administration proposal. It has not
been advocated by the Administration. I can only repeat, there
MORE
- 7 -
is no tax increase contemplated by this Administration.
Q
Do either one of you expect to be a majority
leader in the next Congress?
SENATOR SCOTT: I will accept the nomination. Pete
Dominic thinks that we have a chance of anything up to nine.
Some races look infinitely better today than they did even 30
days ago. It looks to me like in the Senate we have at least
a good chance for a majority. If that is the case, I would
not run away from the majority leadership, I assure you. I
am a candidate right now.
Q
In his acceptance speech in Miami the President
said the American voter will not tolerate any attempt by our
enemies to interfere with its cherished right to cast the votes
any way they wish. But we have reports out of Saigon that the
Government-controlled broadcasting industry in South Vietnam is
editorializing rather strongly against Senator McGovern.
I wonder if you consider that to be an inter-
ference in the American voter's cherished right.
SENATOR SCOTT: No, I don't think it is an interference
in the American voter's cherished rights. After all, I would
be surprised if they did not fear McGovern as much as Hanoi
welcomes the prospect. That is fairly obvious from both sides;
who is for whom. But there is no more interference than there
is when the British, the French, the Italians, the Germans, and
many other nations all are editorializing that Nixon would be
good for the world as well as good for the United States. The
general theme that "We are safer with Nixon" is very encouraging.
Q
You pointed out that the Administration had not
advocated the value added tax. Did the President say he would
not in the future advocate a value added tax?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: That detail was not discussed.
The President did say there would be no tax increase recommended
by this Administration. The details of any tax reform were not
discussed.
Q
We are going to assume you mean, you know, after
the election and so forth. That is the only way we can write it.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think that is fair.
SENATOR SCOTT: That is the way we want you to write
it, including everything else we said.
2
You do have a double standard about interference
in our domestic politics.
SENATOR SCOTT: Politics involves every sort of double
standard, I am afraid. (Laughter)
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Let me comment on the House races.
I certainly hope that Hugh is the Majority Leader, and I think
the prospects are good that he will be.
MORE
- 8 -
I am not a candidate for Majority Leader in the
House. If we are fortunate enough to get a majority, I would
have aspirations for another office. Let me talk about that
for a minute.
We need about 38 to 40 net gain. Our prospects are
improving likewise. I have traveled around the country in the
last several weeks and we do find increasing optimism in many,
many House races. We have an excellent group of candidates.
I am sure that there will be a coattail effect. Naturally, with
that we have a possibility of getting a majority in the House.
Q Can I clarify one thing in regard to both per-
sonal income taxes and value added tax? Are you saying that you
don't expect to have a proposal for increases on either one of
them through the end of the next Congress?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I can't forecast what is going to
happen in the next two or four years. There could be all kinds
of crises, international as well as otherwise, and to make a
commitment for two or four years I don't think is reasonable. All
I can say is the President said this Administration is not going
to ask for a tax increase.
Q That doesn't jibe with the fact that the Presi-
dent himself has said that he is considering a value added tax.
You are laving us with a very confused impression here.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There are people in departments, I
assume -- I don't know as a matter of fact -- examining all
kinds of tax policy changes, but the President, himself -- I
can only repeat it -- said there would be no tax increase advo-
cated by this Administration.
Q
Can we go back over that once more?
SENATOR SCOTT: I can clarify a little by pointing out
there can be all kinds of taxes. The Administration has no
commitment to value added or any other form of new tax, but the
commitment is against a tax increase when you see the total tax
package. That is why value added was not even discussed today
at all. I would not put all the weight on value added that
McGovern does at this time.
Q
Is that commitment through next year?
SENATOR SCOTT: I understood the President's intention
is not to ask this Congress, and I would certainly think the
import was that he would not ask the next Congress for tax
increases if he gets his $250 billion spending ceiling, and if the
Congress is responsible.
There was the further comment that if he doesn't get
the spending ceiling, he will have to achieve it by the process
of veto. At that point, if Congress overrides the veto, they
must find a way to raise the taxes to meet the money which the
Congress has pushed onto the President.
Q
Does no new taxes also mean no new closing of
loopholes?
MORE
- 9 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I think the word "loopholes" is a
schematic semantic which means what the individual may want it
to mean. The present tax provisions aren't properly defined
as loopholes. They are revenue provisions. They are the
statutes of the United States. They are provided for the purpose
of increasing incentives in order to increase the tax revenues
ultimately, and in order to further the benefit to the economy.
Now, the use of a loophole implies that somebody is
avoiding the law, and there is no evasion or avoidance of the law
that I know of.
Q
Getting back to my question on the editorializing
by the government broadcasting industry in South Vietnam ---
SENATOR SCOTT: It goes on in Washington, too.
Q This government that I am talking about exists
militarily and economically almost wholly at the sufferance of
the American people, some of whom are not Republicans. I
wonder on those grounds if, as a matter of principle, you can
still find no reason to criticize these editorials.
SENATOR SCOTT: If you are suggesting that editorials
in Saigon ought to be subjected to pressure from U.S. forces,
I disagree with you. If you are suggesting that the United
States should tell either an American newspaper or foreign news-
paper not to take an editorial position, I disagree with you.
I am a First Amendment boy. I don't quite see the point of the
argument that Saigon doesn't have a right to say that an Ameri-
can Government which has been of great assistance to them, in
their opinion, they would hope it would continue.
At the same time, it is quite natural that Hanoi
would say, of an American Government whom they dislike, that
they hope that that administration will not continue. I don't
think we can tell either Hanoi or Saigon to not publish whatever
they think.
Q But you are arguing against yourself.
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't think SO. I never do.
Q I didn't make any of that argument. I quoted
to you what the President said in his acceptance speech. The
President said the American voter would not tolerate interfer-
ence, in its cherished right to vote, by our enemies. I asked
you to contrast that with the series of editorials that are
being aired in Saigon, attacking one of the candidates for
election here.
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, if you are asking me to con-
trast it, the answer is, I see no contrast to draw. I see
nothing improper in the action.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:50 A.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 19, 1972
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT, SENATOR ROBERT P. GRIFFIN,
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
AND
CONGRESSMAN LESLIE ARENDS
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:15 A.M. EDT
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership Meeting this morning
was a breakfast meeting which was held over in the Dining
Room on the first floor, the Dining Room just off the
State Dining Room.
The President met this morning with the leaders
who are here with me and also attending the meeting was
Dr. Kissinger and John Ehrlichman and Cap Weinberger. During
the meeting the President and the leaders reviewed the
legislative proposals that are still before the Congress and
where that stands and had a thorough discussion of that
and also Dr. Kissinger discussed with them much of what he
talked to members of the press about the other day, but in
a little more detail regarding his recent visit to the Soviet
Union and to Germany, France and Great Britain.
So, with that, I think the leaders can take your
questions.
Senator Scott.
SENATOR SCOTT: Before questions, there is something
that was not discussed, but I read in the paper that Sargent
Shriver said his net worth is only around $100,000. I can't
believe it. I think his net worth is considerably less than
that, unless, of course, you are talking about dollars. (Laughter)
I imagine she must have cut his allowance. (Laughter)
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think in light of what Ron said,
it is best that we just go to questions. It was a thorough
discussion of the legislative program and the report by
Dr. Kissinger.
Q
Did Dr. Kissinger say anything about Vietnam,
Congressman, discussions on Vietnam with the Soviet Union?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: He has had discussions with
them, but we didn't get any details of the discussions in
that regard.
Q
Do you people agree with Senator Dole that
the Watergate case is going to turn out to be a plus
for the Republicans?
MORE
- 2 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would answer it this way. The
indictments are on the record now and it certainly clears
the White House and any of the responsible people in the
Committee to Re-elect. I think the American people have
faith in the judicial system and in my canvassing last
Saturday in Michigan, I think no one we canvassed out of
25 homes raised that issue at all. The American people are
more concerned about the affirmative things that involve
peace and prosperity, and they don't believe that this is
an issue because they know the White House is not at all
connected with it.
SENATOR SCOTT: We canvassed over 100 people in
Minneapolis and St. Paul. Two of the four precincts
were strongly Democratic. I never got a single question
about it. It is what I call perhaps a Washington issue.
The people of this country are satisfied that
the judicial system is operating. They have confidence
in it. Evidently Senator McGovern feels that he will
gain some rallying by attacking the judicial system,
attacking the Grand Jury method of procedure. He is not
going to get anywhere.
Q
Senator Scott, I would like to go back to
an issue that you raised last week and it has become
somewhat confused since then and that is whether or not the
President is under any circumstances going to ask for a
tax increase.
I believe that you qualified your statement and
said that it depended to some extent on what the Congress did.
Mr. Ziegler and Mr. Ehrlichman removed your qualifications
and said there were no circumstances under which a tax
increase would be requested. Yesterday Treasury Secretary
Shultz put back your qualification.
I wonder if you could explain to us just what the
tax situation is?
SENATOR SCOTT: There is no confusion about it.
If the Congress will adopt a spending ceiling, if the Congress
is responsible, that is it. The President believes that
if his advice is followed there is no reason why he should
have a tax increase. Certainly he doesn't intend to do
anything that would bring about the necessity for such a
tax increase.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Let me reiterate somewhat
differently, but I think with the same result. The President
reiterated this morning there would not be a tax increase and
urged us to fight for the spending ceiling and indicated that
any of the various authorizations or appropriations that
would undermine the spending ceiling or produce fiscal
irresponsibility would be vetoed.
Q Does that mean even if Congress does not stay
below the spending ceiling there will still not be a tax
increase or is it a conditional thing?
MORE
- 3 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think that is too speculative to
really give a fair answer to. We have to talk about the
realities of trying to get a spending ceiling which the
President is fighting for and we hope to pass in the House
and to try and convince the Congress to hold down appropriations
and authorizations which we hope to do with those of us in
the minority.
So, I don't think we can go beyond that. The
President did say again this morning he was opposed to a
tax increase.
Q Senator Scott, do you share Senator Stennis'
concern about the Lavelle thing, that the higher-up's
perhaps had any knowledge of it?
SENATOR SCOTT: As you know, I never adopt anybody
else's views and then go on from there. I have views of my
own. I am not on the Committee. I will wait for the
Committee's recommendation and I think it will exercise the kind of
judgment that the Committee is known for and when the Armed Services
recommendation comes in, we will guide ourselves accordingly.
I am not going to say what Senator Stennis says.
He and I were schoolmates together and I have known him
ever since those days as a man who can speak for himself.
Q Sir, newspapers have reported that the Soviets
are sending arms to the fedayeen and thus to the Black
September group. In view of the fact that one of the
murdered members of the Israeli team was American-born,
what are your views, the views of the leadership, on this?
SENATOR SCOTT: This is not a matter where we are
confronted with any evidence. I think it is not a matter
for legislative consideration at this time. I would rather
know what the facts are and I think this is an executive matter
and one which again the Executive would probably want to
know whether there are any facts here and whether they call
for any reaction.
I myself can't go by what the papers report on,
absent some obligation of mine to comment.
I would like to say on the question of Senator
McGovern's proposal that we surrender the fight against
inflation by abandoning the controls, it is pretty well
known that the McGovern jawboning proposal was tried in
several Administrations, that jawboning does not work and
even George McGovern's jawboning doesn't work and a
proposal that we surrender is, of course, an errant refuge
from responsibility.
Senator McGovern failed to vote on the Economic
Stabilization Act December 1 last, which passed 86 to four.
He wasn't even there. He did, I believe, comment other
than on the Senate Floor that it was two or three years late.
Now he wants to take it off altogether, and above everything
else, he didn't even show up to vote for it or against it.
MORE
- 4 -
Q Secretary Shultz indicated yesterday that the
Administration is losing some of its interest or enthusiasm
for value added tax as a substitute for the property tax. Did
the President say anything about that?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We didn't discuss that particular
aspect of tax matters this morning, but I noted that the Vice
President, who is a member of the Intergovernmental Commission,
indicated that he was turning against the value added tax.
The President is waiting for a recommendation from
that group and with the President taking that point of view,
and I suspect a number of others who I have personally talked
with, I would doubt they would recommend it and that certainly
would have a significant impact.
Q
Congressman Ford, did you discuss with the
President this morning the Watergate case?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We did not. It did not come up.
We talked about the legislative program.
Q
Could you give us more detail on what you
discussed with the President?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We went down the list of legis-
lative items that are either in the House or Senate or in
conference in relationship to when we thought the Congress
would adjourn. The White House is going to be working with
the Congress trying to get some of the things that have been
held up or roadblocked, such as H.R. 1, the Welfare Reform
bill, the various other matters that are still in either
one House or the other. There is no judgment on the part
of the White House as to whether this is a good or bad
record until the Congress concludes.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Do you agree with what you claim is the public
attitude that the Watergate affair is an insignificant thing?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It doesn't appear to be among
the voters a very significant matter.
Q
What about your own opinion of it?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't think it is. I think it is
far more important that we make progress both at home and
abroad, internationally as well as domestically, on solving
some of our problems. The judicial process will take care of
whether individuals are guilty or innocent and I think that is
the way the American people feel.
SENATOR SCOTT: I think the word "insignificant" could
cause some misunderstanding. The question here is not what
is significant or insignificant. The indictment of these
people is very significant to them. If they are guilty, then
it was a shabby and misbegotten thing they did, and they should
be punished for it.
But the point is that charges as to others have utterly
failed of any proof and if those charges continue to be made
without proof and without a willingness to present proof, they
open themselves to slander or libel charges as the case may be.
I think we have had enough of this kind of abuse of the
public's credibility .he public's willingness to accept those
charges - the public is not willing to accept them and that
is why they ought to ask the questions.
Q
What charges specifically are you talking about?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am not going to give further
currency by repeating the charges that George McGovern makes.
I will say they are silly charges, they have been made by George
McGovern and they have been widely reported.
Q
Some observers are saying that Senator McGovern
is doing so poorly in the polls and the President is doing so
well with, so far, a minimum of campaigning that perhaps the
President should let Senator McGovern do all of his
campaigning for him.
Looking ahead do you see the polls staying the way
they are?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, the President will, in due time,
announce his own plans. He certainly will have things to say.
Whether the polls stay the way they are depends on whether
the voters stay the way they are. My own canvassing indicates
an overwhelming support of the President. Normally the polls
tend to contract a little as the undecided make up their minds
one way or another. The only poll that counts is on November 7.
Q
Do you see a landslide?
SENATOR SCOTT: No. I would hope that the President
would receive the larges possible vote and that he would carry
in a Republican House and Senate. I would be very happy with
a landslide. I wouldn't ask for a recount. (Laughter)
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
END
(AT 10:29 A.M. EDT.)