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, Senator Everett Dirksen, and Senator Hugh Scott.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
12130726
label
Joint Press Releases Senate-House Republican Leadership, 1969
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12130726
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Joint Press Releases Senate-House Republican Leadership, 1969
description
This file contains White House press releases of press conference held by Representative Gerald Ford, Senator Everett Dirksen, 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
12130726
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1969-12-31
month
12
year
1969
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1969-02-01
month
2
year
1969
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
0e164803b27836dd
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D5, folder "Joint Press Releases Senate-House
Republican Leadership, 1969" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Date
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 18, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
AT 10:25 A.M. BST
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Generally speaking, this is what
we discussed this morning:
Number one, sort of a restructuring in the Post
Office. That deals with personnel and some other matters.
I am not going to try to give you any details and in the
interest of the economy of time you will save your questions,
because you are going to hear about this later this afternoon
and tomorrow when there will be a message and also a
statement by the Postmaster General.
The second thing we discussed was the Office of
Economic Opportunity. That is the Poverty Program. Generally
speaking, we talked about the possibility of making it --
and I think this is important -- an initiatory agency instead
of an operating agency. In other words, it is kind of an
incubator, if you don't mind the term, where they can
initiate programs and then in proportion, as they make them
feasible, they can then farm them out to other agencies and
departments of government.
That is about all the details I care to give you
there, except to say there will be improved management of
OEO and a community action aspect of OEO will be retained,
those are the Community Action Programs. But, obviously,
at both a regional, local and national level, they are going
to have to be improved.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I might add this about the Post
Office Department. The Postmaster General is coming up to
meet with the Members of the House on the Republican side
tomorrow morning to explore in greater detail and depth
what these proposals are. And then, as I understand it,
subsequently tomorrow he will have a full-blown press conference
to explain to the press what he has in mind.
The point about the OEO: There are further consul-
tations going on between the Executive Branch and Members
of the House and Senate, both Democratic and Republican, but
there is anticipated to be a message, probably tomorrow or
the next day, outlining what the White House has in mind after
this consultation.
Now, the messages this week: one will be on the debt
ceiling; one will be on the OEO, the proposed changes after
the consultation; there will be one on the Post Office
Department, we hope, by the end of the week; and also one
on the Electoral College Reform.
Those are contemplated. this week from the White House
to the Congress.
MORE
(OVER)
Digitized from Box D5 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
- 2 -
Q What form will the Electoral College proposal
take?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I wouldn't pre-empt what the
President is going to say. But I think he will re-emphasize
his great interest in Electoral College reform, pointing out
that he believes that the Electoral College vote should more
closely reflect the popular vote. But he does believe,
basically, in the integrity of the Electoral College.
Q
He talked, Mr. Ford, in terms of dividing each
State's Electoral votes proportionate to the State's popular
vote. How do you think that would go over in Congress?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The House and Senate Committees
on the Judiciary are currently holding hearings on the whole
subject matter. I think it is more important, and I believe
the Congress feels this way, to get reform than to have any
specific plan at this point frozen in. We have got to avoid
the possibility of a Constitutional crisis in 1972, which
means we have to get a plan that will get two-thirds of the
votes in the House, in the Senate, and three-quarters of the
State legislatures to approve. Therefore, rather than tie
ourselves down at this moment to a particular plan, we have
got to give some broad recommendations and get the votes in
the House and Senate and also the State legislatures.
2
Do you think there is enough objection to the
President's thoughts on this where it would not be practical
to assume that?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I am not sure that there has been
any solidification of House and Senate views on this matter
as yet. I think there is a high degree of unanimity
that we must have reform. After the hearings, we will be in
a better position to actually focus in on one plan that can
get the necessary votes.
Q
Mr. Ford, what is the thinking behind making
OEO, what you call it, as an initiatory agency? What do you
gain by that?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the public generally has the
feeling that OZO has done a good job in bringing to the surface
the problems in the area of poverty and coming up with some
new ideas for the solution. But, at the same time, the operations
under OEO have not been as satisfactory as the public expects
them to be.
If there is to be any restructuring, transferring
functions from OEO over to the old line agencies, it is
hoped that a better management and improvement in efficiency
and economy can be achieved.
Q Mr. Congressman, could the President do any
of this transferring before the Executive Reorganization
Act is extended?
MORE
- 3 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Yes, it is possible for the
President to delegate certain of the functions of OEO to
some of the old line agencies.
On the other hand, you can't make a physical transfer
under the law. So these exploratory meetings with House and
Senate Committee Members is aimed at emplaining what they
intend to do on a temporary basis, the delegation with the
long-range improvements coming by actual legislative action
in the area of transfers.
Q Senator Dirksen, could you tell us, please,
whether or not the visit of Ambassador Dobrynin came up and
what was said and what the Republican Leadership said about
it?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, it wasn't discussed.
Ω
Senator, what about the debt ceiling?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We didn't get a figure this
morning. But being on the Senate Finance Committee I did
raise the question concerning whether or not it would be one
of these temporarily temporary debt ceilings. But it is not
going to be. We are going to put it in a package so that
they don't have to come back to the Congress in the future.
Q
Senator Dirksen, did you discuss the ratification
of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, the Treaty was not discussed.
Q
How about tax reform?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Tax reform, only to the extent that
there will be a message on tax incentives, particularly with
reference to the poverty areas.
Q
When might there be a message?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Probably within the next
two or three weeks.
One other thing: There will be a bipartisan leadership
meeting here tomorrow morning at 8:30. I can't give you details
on it.
0
Is that concerning the President's trip?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Yes, it will have much to do with
the trip.
Q
Senator, do they plan to reclassify the national
debt not to include securities?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We didn't discuss it. But Arthur
Burns has been working on it and is cooperating with the
Treasury. I think they have been doing a good job in making
some real progress in that field.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
AT 10:35 A.M. EST
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 11, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN,
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD, AND
RON ZIEGLER, PRESS SECRETARY TO
THE PRESIDENT
AT 10:08 A.M. EST
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We will talk about three things
that have been submitted by the President to the Congress.
I shall allude to the Treaty and Representative
Ford will talk about the debt and the International Development
Association.
There is not too much to be said about the Treaty that
you don't already know. It is in the course of discussion
now. Just when that will be completed on the Senate Floor
remains to be seen. It could conceivably go over into next
week, partly because there will be some absentees on some
official missions at the end of this week.
I have had a bit of a nose count made so far as our
side goes, and I would guess that we will have at least a
2-1/2 to 3-to-1 vote in favor of the Treaty. So, unless all
signs fail, I anticipate no difficulty in getting the
necessary two-thirds for its ratification.
So that is about the whole Treaty story for the moment.
Q
Are you speaking just of the Republicans?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: That is correct, because I
don't undertake to count noses on the other side. That is
not quite my function and it might very well be resented. But
I think the Treaty is in a comfortable position now and it
ought to be, because I think it is an acceptable Treaty.
There is one reservation pending, one understanding
both by Senator Ervin --- and I believe Senator Tower proposes
to over a reservation; perhaps, he may finally decide not to do
SO.
But that is the whole Treaty story for the moment.
I will let Jerry tell you about what is taking
place over on the House side so far as the debt ceiling is
concerned and the International Development Association.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Thank you very much, Ev.
According to the Whip Notice, we have an
International Development Association program for tomorrow
and the debt limitation legislation for Thursday.
MORE
(OVER)
- 2 -
I understand there may be some delay until next
week on the Debt Limitation Bill. But, taking that up first--
because it was-programmed in the discussion initially--under
the budget submitted in January by the outgoing Administration
it was perfectly obvious as a mathematical fact that there
had to be an increase in the debt limitation.
The House Committee on Ways and Means has recommended
a debt ceiling on a temporary basis up to $377 billion--$5
billion less than that recommended by the Administration--with a
fallback to a permanent debt limitation of $365 billion a year
from this June 30.
It is our feeling that the Republicans in the House
will, in better than a majority, vote for the increase in
debt ceiling as recommended by the Committee on Ways and
Means. It is just a mathematical need and necessity.
We are still operating, as all of you know, with the
fiscal situation in the past and the budget as recommended
by the outgoing Administration.
The International Development Association calls for
a $480 million subscription by the United States over the
next three years. This legislation was initiated by the
Eisenhower Administration in 1960. It was reaffirmed again
in 1964. It is a bilateral approach to the Foreign Aid Program.
Under the bill, as we have before the House tomorrow,
it will call for a reduction in the United States' contribution
from 42 percent to 40 percent, which is an improvement even
though the United States still makes a substantial contribution.
Here. again, I think we will get good Republican
support for the legislation and I think it will be approved.
Q
Congressman, when will the President have to
ask for another debt increase?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The reduction from the President's
request from $382 billion to $377 billion, I think, makes it
very, very tight as far as the handling of our Federal fiscal
affairs is concerned for the next 18 months.
If we are able to make some reductions in expendi-
tures and if the estimates submitted in the budget in January
for revenues are valid, the Administration can get by, although
it is going to be very tight.
But under even the most optimistic circumstances,
using the figures coming out of the Committee on Ways and
Means, I think we will have to have another increase, probably
a year hence.
Q
Congressman Ford, what were the leaders told
this morning about the ABM?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We were told, Mr. Oberdorfer, that we
will have a message from the President sometime this week, but
we were given none of the details as to what to anticipate.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
Is that a message to Congress?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I understand it will be a statement,
not a message to the Congress.
Q
Will it be a statement made to the Congress
or will it be made to the general public?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would rather have Mr. Ziegler
answer that.
MR. ZIEGLER: As we firm that up we will be giving
you that information.
Q
I wonder if the two leaders would care to
give us their opinion on the ABM and how they feel about it?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Speaking for myself, in the
past I have supported the decisions of the previous Administra-
tion. I am reserving judgment to see what the new President
recommends in this regard. I can trace the history, having
been on the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations for
12 years, going back as far as 1953 when we started the
first studies in an anti-ballistic missile system. I would
prefer to make no further statement until we have heard what
the President, himself, is recommending.
Ω
Senator Dirksen?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I think there ought to be
a little clarification. There was a tendency to believe that
the money that was provided heretofore was "no-year" money.
I think that is a mistake. They are going to ask for
authorizations for military construction and procurement and then
ask for appropriations. There is roughly $1-1/2 billion in
the instant budget, assuming, of course, they are going to
go along with the program as originally laid out. But that
is a matter for the President to first determine, I believe.
There may be variations of what has been submitted
heretofore. Consequently, I don't think anything authoritatively
can be pronounced on the subject at the moment.
Q
Did the President indicate when the statement
might be coming?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, he didn't. He just said
"this week. And I think you ought to make allowances there, too.
Let's assume, for example, that he is going to meet with the
National Security Council or take counsel from other sources.
Obviously, that takes a little time. It is a highly important
matter.
So, when you say "this week," it could go over
into next week. So, I think, due allowance has to be made.
Q
Senator, I don't fully understand your clarifi-
cation on the budget considerations on the ABM. Are you saying
if the President decides to go ahead with the manufacture
and deployment, it will take a considerable increase ---
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I didn't say that, no.
?
--- in the appropriation or would the billion
and a half that is now in the instant budget be sufficient to
cover that?
MORE
(OVER)
- 4 -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: That I can't answer. I am trying
to make clear that you can get information from various
sources. There was some belief that it was "no-year" money
and they needed no new authorizations. Well you do need
authorizations for both construction and procurement.
Then, of course, you have to set yourself to the amounts that
are in the budget at the present time.
2
Have either of you taken soundings in the
Senate or the House as to what the sentiment is on these
various aspects?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: You can take informal soundings,
but obviously you can get no conclusive answer.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: My judgment in the House is that
if the President recommends the procurement and the deployment
of a system -- without pre-judging what the system will be --
that the House will support the decision.
Q
Did the President indicate whether he has made
up his mind yet about the ABM?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: He did not.
Q
Mr. Ford, I am sorry, if the President comes
in and doesn't specify which kind of system he wants, the
chances of getting it through the House would be increased?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The chances would be improved
if we had a, categorical determination as to the kind of
a system. I think it would be unwise to go any further
in commenting than that.
Q
I didn't quite understand what Senator Dirksen's
view was, himself, towards the ABM.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I uttered no view. I am like
a man on a jury, I wait for all the evidence to be in,
because it is a highly sensitive and extremely important
matter. So wait until all the evidence is in and then I
will tell you.
Ω
I wondered, in the light of what Senator
Dirksen has said, if we could move up the 11 o'clock briefing
and ask one question of Mr. Ziegler.
MR. ZIEGLER: I will be happy to answer your
questions as soon as Congressman Ford and Senator Dirksen
conclude. The schedule is very tight.
Q
Did you talk about Vietnam?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: There was no discussion about
Vietnam.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would assume that when Secretary
Laird comes back there will be some briefing by him as far
as leadership is concerned.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Two or three weeks ago you said you would be
getting a tax reform message in two or three weeks. Did you
find out where you stand on that?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, you know a week is a relative
thing. I will remind you of the Scriptures. It says; One
day is 1,000 years and 1,000 years is one day.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it is fair to say that
we were told that within the next month there would be a number
of messages for the legislative program.
Q.
On what?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion of the
details.
Q
Did you talk about extending the surtax?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We only alluded to it virtually.
&
How was that alluded to?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: When you discuss the debt limit,
obviously you mention or don't mention that the surtax
is included in the receipts that you expect. Beyond that
we did not go.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
d
Can we have Mr. Ziegler for one minute?
Q
Ron, Senator Dirksen seemed to be indicating
that we would not get a statement on the ABM today ---
SENATOR DIRKSEN:
Are you going to talk about
me behind my back ? (Laughter)
Q
Ron, do you accept Senator Dirksen's
definition of time?
MR. ZIEGLER: I read the Scripture and I am
devoted to it.
On the whole matter on the ABM statement -- the
President has indicated that he will make a statement on
his decision on the ABM sometime this week. That is
where it stands and as we firm it up and as the President
makes final determinations on this, then, we will provide
that information to you
Q
Ron, originally he said "early" this week.
I am not trying to accuse him of missing his deadline, but
from our planning point of view, is it still likely to be
early this week, i.e., before Wednesday?
MR. ZIEGLER: For your planning, the President
will make a statement on the ABM sometime this week.
I
What is the chance of slippage into next week?
MORE
(OVER)
- 6 -
MR. ZIEGLER: The President has just said a short
time ago that he will make a statement on the ABM sometime
this week.
0
But the Senator said it might pass over.
MR. ZIEGLER: The Senator went on to reflect
his personal point of view.
C
He said it might go into next week.
MR. ZIEGLER: But I am making it very clear, I think,
that the President will have a statement on the ABM sometime
this week.
a
Can we rule out today?
MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, you can.
Q
Have you decided on a format?
MR. ZIEGLER: No, As soon as we firm up these matters
we will be providing that to you. As soon as a decision is
made you will be informed immediately.
2
Will you have another NSC meeting on the
subject?
MR. ZIEGLER: There is an NSC meeting scheduled
for this week where I am sure it will be discussed.
Q
When is that?
MR. ZIEGLER: I believe it is Wednesday. I will
firm that up at the regular 11 o'clock briefing.
2
Are you waiting for Laird to return?
MR. ZIEGLER: As you know, Secretary Laird does
return, I believe, Wednesday evening.
0
Has the President made up his own mind?
MR. ZIEGLER: I would not expand on this subject
any further than I have.
a
Ron, the leaders spoke not only of the NSC
meeting, but Senator Dirksen suggested he might want to
confer with other groups before making his announcement.
MR. ZIEGLER: I think the President made this
clear, Smitty, the other day in his Press Conference, that he
wanted to discuss it with members of the NSC and also
he would be conferring with other parties on the subject.
Q
Like who?
MR. ZIEGLER: I would not want to go into precisely
who the President confers with on these matters.
MORE
7 I i
Q
Did the President study the report that was
given to Dr. DuBridge that was supposed to be completed,
the scientific report?
MR. ZIEGLER: I am not sure if this was in the matter
that he has reviewd or not, Herb.
Q
But in any case, the President's public
announcements would not come prior to the NSC meeting; is
that a correct assumption?
MR. ZIEGLER: I would not necessarily indicate
that that would be a fully correct assumption. I understand
your questioning on this. The only thing I can give you is
what I said earlier, and that is that the President will make a
statement on the ABM sometime this week. Because the decision
as to the precise date that he will make this statement
has not been made, I cannot give you any further guidance
on this. If I would, I would be speculating along with you.
Q
You may have an announcement this afternoon?
MR. %IEGLER: When the decision is made, we will
provide you with the information, yes.
a
What will be the format on that statement,
Ron? Do you expect him to go before live TV?
MR. ZIEGLER: I just don't know. The decision
on this matter, as I said, has not been finalized by the
President.
At 10:45, the President will greet the Easter
Seal Girl.
At 11 o'clock, we will have the regular 11 o'clock
briefing.
END
AT 10:35 A.M. EST
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 18, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN.
AND CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
AT 10:34 A.M. EST
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The first object of discussion this morning was the one bank
holding. That has been bouncing around for quite some time.
It is evident now, of course, that there will be legislation
in this field. There is a big interest in it, both in the
House and in the Senate.
To some extent it has been popularized by Congressman
Patman of Texas. He has introduced a bill. I believe Senator
Proxmire of Wisconsin has introduced a bill.
The Administration, of course, is very much interested.
There will be a bill and the Administration will support a
bill. I fancy that Senator Bennett and Sparkman will probably
introduce a version that can conceivably get the support of
the Administration.
It is an important thing from one economic stand-
point, certainly, and that is the concentration of power in
the whole economic and industrial and financial field today.
It has brought a sense of apprehension and alarm in a great
many quarters.
I have looked at it over a period of time, giving
a little attention to it, so we can see now that there has
been a rapid progressive increase in a number of bank holdings,
and obviously, it is going to cry for attention one day soon.
So that is one field of endeavor in which we are sure
there will be legislation in the not too distant future, and
if it is the right kind of legislation, certainly it will
have Administration support.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Just to follow up on what
Senator Dirksen said, there is the Patman Bill and there
will be the Administration Bill in the House. In some
respects, the Administration Bill is stronger than the
Patman Bill and there are some technical differences between
the two otherwise.
I am confident the House will pass a bill, and we
will wholeheartedly endorse the Administration proposal,
because we think it is strong in important areas.
MORE
(OVER)
- 2 -
There was another matter discussed. The President
is meeting with the Attorney General and with the Secretary
of HEW this afternoon on the student riot problem, and its
various ramifications.
The previous Administration did not implement the
legislation that the Congress provided during the last session
to withhold funds from those students who are involved in
campus riots. Neither did the last Administration use as
effectively as we think they should, the anti-riot legislation.
But there will be this conference today and the
President will have a statement later this week in reference
to the overall problem. It is our general impression that
these militants, small in number, are really using Facist
tactics in depriving the rest of the students the opportunity
to get an education.
I think the whole approach of the Administration
will be aimed at this Facist group that want to deprive
students of an opportunity to get an education.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: There was rather broad Leadership
participation in this subject, and the discussion went around
the table. The President is deeply interested and obviously
SO. I think there was a general feeling that the type of
demonstration that is carried on to the extreme is absolutely
anti-social in nature. If it is criminal, of course there are
criminal statutes to deal with it. Whether it is in the
category of a misdemeanor or a felony, in any event it is
crime.
But in so many cases, it is anti-social conduct,
and there has to be a deterrent for it. Now what is the
deterrent? Perhaps the withholding of these loans or
denying forebearance on these loans, or any other economic
weapon that maybe available in order to deter this
action in the extreme.
So the President has been discussing it with a
number of people, and he will be prepared to say something
on this subject a little later.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We also discussed the ABM
proposal by the President, and there was overwhelming
support on behalf of the Leadership for the President's
program. I can say from my travels in Michigan over the
weekend that the public reaction generally, as far as I
could detect, was favorable to the President's recommendation.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I think we ought to recognize the
fact that this morning there seemed to be virtual unanimity
on the ABM. There may be an exception or two, but virtually
there was a unanimous attitude in support of the President's
position.
I know there has been a tendency to raise the
question as to whether there will be a battle in the Senate.
Obviously it will be widely discussed, but when you think in
terms of a battle, I am not so sure it will be a battle,
because the argument is going to be pretty substantial
in behalf of this proposal.
MORE
- 3 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: In light of the fact that
tomorrow the House will consider the debt limitation legisla-
tion, we discussed in considerable depth the viewpoint of
the Administration in reference to the fiscal situation.
The Director of the Bureau of the Budget was present. He
pointed out that they are working on specific reduction
in various departments.
There is the distinct possibility that we will
have an overall ceiling on expenditures which will be very,
very helpful and beneficial in convincing the American
people that the Administration really means what it says when
they talk about trying to extricate us from the serious
financial problem we are in and the inflationary impact of
runaway Federal budget problems.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: One can hardly talk about the
public debt without thinking of the corollary things that
go with it. For instance, that means expenditure; it means
the overall budget; it means whether there will be a surplus
or a deficit.
So this whole matter was rather widely discussed
this morning. Obviously there' is going to be a search
for economies wherever they can be made. It will reasonably
selective, and on the other hand, you hope it will be
substantial.
The President is receiving the full cooperation
of every department head and every agency head in this field.
You have to have cooperation in order to get it done.
In addition thereto, there has to be a cooperative
spirit on the part of Congress, because we undertook this in
the predecessor Administration when we passed that Financial
Reform Act, including a $6 billion expenditure cut, plus
the surtax.
Now both of these will be coming up again, so what
can you exorcise out of the budget? There you have the
Budget Director at your elbow, and I pretend no figure this
morning to indicate whether it will be "X" bill or "Y" bill
or "Z" bill, because it is just a little too early, and
besides the Appropriations Committee of the House, where these
bill start, is only now beginning to get its teeth into it.
But the whole economy issue will certainly not be
lost, and we will have virgorous attention not only on
Capitol Hill, but in the Executive branch and with the
departments.
O
Congressman Ford, can I ask you about your
statement on the past Administration's failure to use the laws?
Can we infer properly from this, that the current Administration
is not considering further laws to curb student excesses on
the campus?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would not preclude additional
legislation, but we now have statutes which can be used; one
referring to the Department of HEW and the other referring to
the Attorney General. For that reason the President is
meeting with both, and I think you will find in the President's
message this week some real action in both areas.
MORE
(OVER)
4
O
When will the Administration's legislation
on one bank holding companies be introduced?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it will be made available
for the Committee sometime this week.
O
Mr. Ford, the previous Administration took
the position, I believe, that the legislation written
providing that you could deny funds to a student convicted
of some misdemeanor, would not hold up. Are you satisfied
that it would not work?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the legislation passed
by Congress will work, but you have to have a will in the
Executive Branch to make it work. I think this Administration
has the will and if there is any need for modification or
change in the law, the Administration will ask for that
authority.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I have no reaction that the previous
Administration ever said it would not work. First of all,
you are on good legal ground. This is a benefit issued out
of the Federal Treasury, and then the Congress and Executive
comes into play, so there is no question about the right
to do it if we want to.
I think they were timid in the previous Administration
in not quite putting their hearts into it, but it has to be
done, and this Administration is going to deal with it.
O
I thought Secretary Cohen had taken the
position that it would not do the job.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Secretary Cohen is just one. I
don't know how much of an exploration he made about it, but
we undertook to point out that we were for it, and did make
that case up on the floor and in the Finance Committee.
0
At the economic discussion this morning,
was it the consensus of the Leadership that the surtax must
be extended?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no specific discussion
on this point. The emphasis was that the Administration was
going to work with the economy block in the Congress to try
to reduce extenditures; one, SO that we could justify the
debt limination, and two, increase the Administration's
efforts against the inflationary impact we are faced with
right now.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I will give you a personal reason
for it, without attributing it to anybody else. If the surtax
yields between $10 billion and $11 billion, and you let it die,
then there is a $10 billion or $11 billion hole in the receipt
of the Administration, so how are you going to fill up that
hole unless you find $10 billion that you can delete from
the budget to even break even, let alone be thinking in
terms of a surplus.
So it speaks for itself, and if I were speaking for
myself, you could not throw it overboard unless you find that
money elsewhere.
MORE
-5-
0
Do you think there is a chance of doing that?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Of throwing it overboard?
O
Yes.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Let me answer as a member of the
Senate Finance Committee. If you leave it to me, we will keep
the surtax.
0
There have been suggestions that that $10
billion or $11 billion could be obtained through raising
tax reforms.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: There has been sort. of amorphous
terms assigned here as tax reforms covering a great many things.
But as you know, tax reforms are very, very slow, and sometimes
when they talk about tax reform, they put it in the frame of
two or three years. You are dealing here with an instant
budget for a fiscal year that will begin on the first of
July, and perhaps you cannot await the reform process. You
have to have something in the duke. It has to be good, hard
information about that budget, and of course, that will be
available.
0
Congressman Ford, you mentioned a distinct
possibility, in your words, of another expenditure ceiling
in the coming year. Do you have in mind that the Administration
might propose an expenditure ceiling or that the Congress
might impose one on its own?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It was discussed from both angles
and it was not decided whether the Administration would
recommend one or whether we, representing the Administration
in the House, would seek to impose one, but it was pointed
out that there are some benefits from an overall ceiling
rather than having individual expenditure ceilings on each
and every Appropriation Bill as they go through the House.
I think there is a very good argument that can
be made for a ceiling. I happen to personally prefer the
overall rather than the individual on each Appropriation
Bill, but no decision was made as to which avenue or which
approach would be made.
O
How many billions do you have in mind? Do
you have any approximation?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No specific figure was discussed.
I think there was a high degree of unanimity that it ought
to be a figure of somewhat less than that recommended in the
January budget, but I would not tie anybody to a specific
figure at this time.
0
Would the one bank holding company bill go
up as a Presidential message?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Let us say that it would go up as
an Administration proposal, or Administration support, but
it could be either way, and I don't know if that is too material,
because of the importance of the subject.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:50 A.M. EST)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 25, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN,
AND CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:30 A.M. EST
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We had a two hour fiscal and
monetary session. Everybody sat quietly for two hours.
That is in violation of what I saw in "Nation's Business,
by the doctor who said, "Don't sit longer than 30 minutes
without getting up and walking around your desk.' But
everybody stayed right in place for two hours.
The emphasis this morning was, of course, upon
inflation and how you effectively restrain it. I think
there is general agreement that that is a foremost
problem and that it can be restrained only by finding
cuts in spending and protecting your revenue. In other
words, dealing with existing taxes, including the surtax.
Now then, in order to do the job effectively,
you have to start with a budget, of course. I go on the
theory that you have got to have a refined sense of the
budget. It has to be a true budget. And therein lies the
problem. Taking the last Johnson budget, it is a true
budget in one sense, but in another sense it isn't.
When I say this, I impute nothing to the Johnson
Administration or to the predecessor President with
respect to that budget. I simply say that in the making
of the budget, you may have your choice of one, two or
three figures: as for example, the interest on the public
debt.
At the time of making the budget, they will come
up with a figure, and they may stay with that figure and
then you discover, because of a rising interest rate, that
you are a couple of hundred million dollars out of line.
Well, you have to compensate for it, because events
simply overtake theory, and overtake calculations, and
you are going to be $200 million in the hole.
That would be true, I suppose, about receipts,
like oil leases, where they have not actually been issued.
It would be true in the case of the commodity credit
corporation, and price supports. If you underestimate
and you find that you have got to add to it, there it is.
That is why I say you have to find a true budget from which
to work. That is what we are in process of doing.
MORE
(OVER)
- 2 -
Then, of course, you determine where you can cut
and what you are going to save. I give you no figures
this morning. I simply say to you that there will be a
substantially larger saving, larger surplus, after we
get through than the one that was estimated by the prior
Administration.
So, generally, that is the whole story.
Q
You are talking about fiscal 1970 when you
make that statement?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: 1969 and 1970.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would simply add that it was
the feeling on the part of the President and his advisers
that we had reached the high-water mark of inflation in
this country last year. As you know, it was about 5 percent.
The whole effort from the fiscal point of view
is to try and moderate and reduce the inflationary impact.
In the process of going through the budget and taking a
realistic look at the anticipated revenues, and taking
a more realistic look at the expenditures through the
various agencies and through the Bureau of the Budget,
there will be significant savings in fiscal 1970. There
will be some savings in fiscal 1969.
These will be reflected in the various actions
taken by the agencies and will be reflected in the message
that will come to the Congress tomorrow in reference to
the fiscal picture.
The whole attempt is to do what the Administration
can in the area of fiscal control through the budgetary
process.
Q
What is the message tomorrow, Mr. Ford?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The message tomorrow will be
the request for an extension of the 10 percent surtax,
but at the same time pointing out that there are adjustments,
and significant adjustments downward in fiscal 1970,
related to the anticipated and hoped for extension of the
surtax.
The net result is that we hope to have a budget
surplus and realistically as much as that anticipated in
the January budget sent up by former President Johnson.
Q
In what areas do you expect these significant
savings?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The specifics were not laid out.
They were lumped in as to reductions that had been achieved
or hoped to be achieved by the various agencies and the
add-on reductions that would be imposed by the Bureau of
the Budget.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
Mr. Ford, how long will the request for
the extension of the surtax be -- for a year or more?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The request will be for fiscal
1970.
&
For the full amount, sir?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Yes.
2
Senator, you said that there will be substantially
larger surplus by the time we get through. Who do you mean
by "we"?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I mean those who are charged
with the responsibility of the budget and the fiscal
affairs of this Administration.
Q
You didn't mean the Congress as opposed to
the Administration?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: The Congress is a part of this
operation; for after all, they will have to be passing on
authorizations, and on appropriations. Insofar as they
relate to this whole picture, they have a responsible role
just as well.
Q
Congressman Ford, you pointed out last year
there was a 5 percent inflation rate, and that this year
the high-water mark had been reached. Do you have an
estimate for how much inflation there may be this year?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: That was not discussed at the
meeting this morning, but I have seen other comments and
I have talked to some of the people in the Administration,
and it is hoped it would be 3 percent or less in 1970.
Q
Along that line, are there any signs at
present which point to a reduced rate of inflation --
specific signs?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the general attitude,
and I can't give you any specifics, but 4.8 to 5 percent
was the figure in calendar 1968. But the economists as
a whole, indicated from a variety of the economic indicators,
there will be this drop off from the figure of 1968 to
a lower figure.
Q
Would the Congress --
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Let me respond a little further.
I don't believe those figures are very significant,
because what you have to do is to siphon off some
spending, and at the same time use whatever tax devices
are at hand for the purpose of adding to it, so that you
take that out of the economic blood stream. Where will it
finally land? You can't tell. You can only tell after
it happens.
MORE
(OVER)
- 4 -
?
Would the Congress sit still for a major
cut in public works spending?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't believe that the
Congress will reduce the budget requests of the previous
Administration or the programs of this one significantly.
There will be some selective changes. Those programs
or those projects which have an emergency nature, those
projects which are in the mill, half way through, obviously
ought to be continued. But there will be a selective
pruning both by the Congress and, I think, by the Adminis-
tration.
Q
Will the message tomorrow reflect this?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Let me illustrate just a little,
whoever asked that question,
I saw the Weather Bureau forecast the other
day for what they anticipate by way of floods in the
Northwest, and in the Middlewest. Evidently it is going
to be a rough season. There you are going to have an
emergency, and you will have to do something about it.
That you can call selective.
On the other hand, you may have something
in the mill that is not nearly so urgent, and there
again you can be selective in holding down one and
raising the other. But in every case, you try to keep
the whole public works picture in balance.
Q
Was there any indication about any
steps the Administration might take to discourage business
expansion, as an example, the 7 percent interest rate?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: It was discussed in the Senate
Finance Committee yesterday morning.
Q
In light of that, and in light of the
housing and the interest rate, and the whole current
inflation picture, do you accept the validity of these
predictions that we have peaked on inflation, and it will
drop to 3 percent?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't know. I don't attach
too much significance to a figure, as such. You do what
you can and you just want to be sure that you are going
in the right direction to diminish and restrain inflation,
then let the chips fall where they will. Then, if that
isn't enough, you have to resort to something else.
Q
Senator, may I clear up something that
just appears as a technicality? This message will be
from the President to the Congress and not from the
Secretary?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: It will be from the President.
MORE
- 5 -
Q Gentlemen, we were told last week, I think,
by some of the people who were at the meeting, that the
Administration's figures on the budget, as you suggest,
show some areas where there were underestimates of what
it is going to cost, and overestimates, perhaps of income,
such as user charges and other things that will hike
the thing up may be $1 billion, from which you have to
find corresponding money.
Now, the Johnson budget called for a very
substantial surplus, reasonably substantial, in fiscal
1969.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: 2.4
Q
In view of these underestimates and so on,
how are we to get to a situation where we actually have
a larger surplus, as you suggest, in fiscal 1969,
with three quarters of the year already over?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I didn't mean to imply for
a moment that what we will save will be as big as
we expect to save in 1970. We will certainly save
what we can over and above that figure, if that is possible.
or
Do you think it will be possible?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I think SO. They have been
going all through the budget, and it is only after they
come up with hard figures for every expenditure item
that you will know.
Q
If the Administration feels, and you say
they do feel that the high-water mark in inflation has
been reached, they must have given you some supporting
data or evidence of this. Can you give us some idea of
that?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't know that we subscribe
particularly to where you did reach the high-water mark
in inflation. It depends on when these remedial forces
come into play, that you can say, "All right, you can
now see statistically that .it is tapering off.
Q
Did you discuss the situation in the light
of the war, the possibility of the war ending or continuing?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Only in a very modest residual
way. It was alluded to, expressing a hope that if we
can get out from under that expenditure, then, of course,
it becomes a new ball game, as the Budget Director said.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the feeling was in
the light of the current siutation in Vietnam, and the
economic problems we have of trying to fight inflation,
that this message was needed and necessary. But if there
were any changes in either the economic situation or in
the war in Vietnam, it would certainly give a great
deal of additional running room as far as the tax picture
and the expenditure picture was concerned on some of our other
problems.
MORE
(OVER)
- 6 -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Let me make one observation
there. The previous Budget Director under the previous
Administration went up here to some college to make
a commencement speech, and strangely enough it was a
speculative speech on what was going to happen if and
when we concluded this disagreeable business in Vietnam.
He started out with this premise: He said there
are those who feel that once we bring an end to it, there
will be $20 billion to spend on all manner of domestic
social programs. He said, "I am sorry that I have to
disabuse the public mind of that impression."
Then he went on to tell what a hole was plowed
into our inventory of weapons of all kinds, knocking heli-
copters out of the sky, planes, ammunition, and everything.
Contrary to what our experience was in Korea, it will be
quite the reverse now, and there will be gaps in our whole
security pattern.
Those will have to be filled up. Well, how much
will be left out of the $20 billion, if you take that as
an estimate? Well, he dropped it way down.
Q
Mr. Ford, did you mean to suggest that the
message tomorrow will be qualified on the basis of
possible changes? In other words, ask for an extension
provided that certain things don't change in the next year?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Yes. In other words, it
is predicated on the present circumstances, looking down
the road as far as the economy is concerned, and as far
as the war in Vietnam is concerned. Really, it reaffirms
that part of the budget message that came up from President
Johnson, where he said it was needed and necessary to have
an extension of the surtax because as far as he could foresee
at that time, these circumstances would prevail in fiscal 1970.
0 And the full 10 percent is needed for the
full fiscal year?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Based on these assumptions,
of which any one of the several could change.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(10:45 A.M. EST.)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 15, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD,
AND RON ZIEGLER, PRESS SECRETARY
TO THE PRESIDENT
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:25 A.M. EST
MR. ZIEGLER: Congressman Ford will give a brief
rundown on the Leadership Meeting of this morning.
Senator Dirksen had to return to the Senate for
important Senate business. Congressman Ford will give a briefing
on the Leadership Meeting.
Following that, Robert Mayo, Director of the Bureau
of the Budget, will be here to background you on the agency-
by-agency breakdown of the budget.
Congressman Ford.
MR. FORD: Thank you very much, Ron.
I am not sure, with more people and half our ranks
here for this press conference, how it will go. But I will
try to handle both what Senator Dirksen might have said and
myself.
The Leadership Meeting involved a discussion of
the contemplated messages, of which there will be a number
within a week.
The ones that will probably come first will be from
the Treasury on tax reform, from the Department of Justice
on organized crime, obscenity, narcotics and dangerous drugs,
crime and the rights of the accused.
There will also be one shortly on postal rates and
probably the reorganization of the Post Office Department.
There will be others following, one rather soon involving
the District of Columbia.
As Mr. Ziegler has said, there will be a briefing
by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget with all of you
on the President's substantial revisions in the budget which
was submitted in January. The new Nixon budget will show
savings in expenditures in fiscal year 1970 of approximately
$4 billion -- $1.1 billion in Defense, and $2.9 billion in the
area of domestic programs.
I hasten to point out, however, that in a number
of areas there will be some increases over what was expended
in 1969, which is, I think, a very valid basis of comparison.
MORE
(OVER)
- 2 -
Even though there are these reductions made below that
proposed by Mr. Johnson, the Department of HEW, for example,
will have an increase of $.3 billion over the fiscal year
1969. HUD will have an increase of over $800 million. The
manpower programs will have increases of about $300 million,
even though the $100 million cut comes in the Job Corps.
The increases in non-Defense spending, comparing
1970 with 1969, shows an increase of about $6.5 billion.
On the plus side, I think this is very, very important,
the Johnson budget of January anticipated an increase of
43,000 US civilian employees in the next fiscal year. The
new Administration, actually, is recommending a decrease of
approximately 5,000 Government employees.
To translate that into dollars -- this is what the
American taxpayer is interested in -- this means a saving
to the taxpayer of roughly a half-billion dollars in fiscal
year 1970. This can be done with good management.
If we look at the savings in dollars and the reduction
of Government employees, I think we are going to find the
largest surplus in 18 years in the Federal Government and the
fourth largest in the history of the United States.
We also had a briefing on what information was
available on the incident off North Korea. But 1 understand
the Defense Department has had two releases or two press
conferences and the plan is that the Defense Department should
keep the press apprised on developments in that area.
I will be glad to answer any questions.
C'
Mr. Ford, how comprehensive a tax reform
message do you expect?
MR. FORD: The details of that will have to be
included in the message. That, as I understand it, will be
significant.
O
Would you still anticipate that Congress will
impose a spending ceiling this year as it did last year?
MR. FORD: I think it is difficult to be specific in
that regard. The new Administration is not recommending it
at the time it is submitting its revised budget. Mr. Johnson
didn't recommend it when he submitted his budget for '69
and he actively opposed it during the consideration of the
'69 budget. He accepted it most reluctantly.
The Congress, in working its will on the budget for
'70, will have to take a look to see whether it does seem
needed and necessary.
However, I should point this out: The new Administra-
tion, in taking a strong position in trying to reduce anticipated
expenditures, in effect, has gone along with the views of the
Congress in the last Session that there had to be some
control over Federal expenditures.
MORE
- 3 -
0
Mr. Ford, since you said that fiscal '69 is
a very valid basis for comparison, don't you think that
Congress is going to object or critize rather strongly as
far as the very deep concern in natural resource development,
agriculture and space. These are three areas, apparently,
that has been used to get some of the money to transfer
over into HUD and so on. Do you support these cuts in those
areas?
MR. FORD: I support, overall, the new Nixon budget.
I think it is appropriate to point out, however, that the
Congress in the hearings on appropriations will have an
opportunity to work its will. What is recommended by the
Committee on Appropriations inthe House and in the Senate
and what the House and Senate do will be the final test of
what the President has to work with when the fiscal '70
budget gets to his desk for actual expenditures.
But, overall, I think it is an excellent attempt
to really do, from the Executive Branch point of view, an
effective war against inflation.
Q
Would you favor Congressional spending ceilings?
MR. FORD: I have in the past. I think I will
reserve judgment on that until we see what the Committee on
Appropriations does.
?
Do you have any reaction on the downing of the
plane?
MR. FORD: I think my reaction should await further
information from the Defense Department.
Q
Mr. Ford, on the messages that you outlined,
is there to be a separate message on the rights of the accused
and do these first three groups that vou mentioned, taxes,
the various messages on the Justice Department, and the postal
rates, are those intended for this week, as you understand it?
MR. FORD: I would say that these would be within
a week.
Q
Within a week from now?
MR. FORD: In what order, it is difficult to determine
at this point.
a
Is it a separate accused message? Do I get
that inference from what you said?
MR. FORD: I believe that instead of a crime or
anti-crime package all lumped together, it is anticipated
there will be specific messages in definitive areas.
Q
Like crime, obscenity, narcotics, all separate
messages?
MR. FORD: It is probably going to be that.
0 A factual question: Did I understand you --
and I may have misunderstood you do I understand you to
say that the revised budget that will be proposed by the
new Administration is an increase of $6 billion over the '69
budget?
MORE
(OVER)
- 4 -
MR. FORD: It is an increase of 6.5 over the spending
figures in non-military items.
Q
Congressman, didn't the Republicans support the
manpower ceiling bill which became law and is now law?
MR. FORD: Those of us who voted for the tax increase
and the expenditure limitations also suported the provision
in that legislation which provided that a department, with
one or two exceptions, could only fill three out of four
vacancies.
This was an arbitrary prescription which had to be
imposed because of the tremendous increases which materialized
in the last three or four years in the Government-civilian
manpower.
As long as the new Administration is reducing 43,000
below what the Johnson Administration recommended in their
fiscal '70 budget, and actually providing for a 5,000 decrease,
I don't think you need the arbitrary type of provision that
we had in the law that was passed.
2
You would go along with repeal of that
provision?
MR. FORD: As long as we have the assurance that
there will be this substantial reduction in Government employment,
I believe it is far better, from the management point of view,
to do away with the arbitrary provision.
0
Mr. Ford, would you want that written into the
law that passes this year?
MR. FORD: That we should have this reduction? I
would be delighted to.
C Speaking of repeal of sections and that kind
of thing, what do you think Congress' reaction will be to the
Administration's proposal to postpone the freeze on AFDC
payments?
MR. FORD: I think the Congress will probably go
along this year, as they did last year, for the postpcnement
of that freeze. It is my personal opinion.
2
Is there remaining a favorable considerable
sentiment for freezing?
MR. FORD: I think there is considerable sentiment
for the resolution of the problem that prompted the freeze. But
I think that we found that that freeze may have created more
difficulties than solutions. That is why we postponed the freeze
a year ago. That is why I think the Congress will probably
do the same in 1969.
0
How do you think Congress will react to the
scaling down of the Social Security benefit increase?
MORE
- 5 -
MR. FORD: I think it is difficult to determine
at this point. If we are successful in controling the
inflationary psychology and factual situation, I think that
Congress will be more receptive to the lesser figure. It
depends upon how successful we are in really attacking and
solving the problem of inflation.
a
Mr. Ford, in view of the $12,500 raise
Congress voted for itself, is this going to put you in kind
of a bad spot to try to sell the seven percent increase
instead of ten percent for the Social Security?
MR. FORD: I think there will be some difficulty
in that regard. But when you add up the increases in pay
for Government employees and the pay of individuals in private
enterprise over the last three or four years, the argument
can be made as long as you whip the problem of inflation.
It is a major domestic problem right at the moment.
0
Mr. Ford, what do you think the chances are
of getting a significant tax reform package through this year?
MR. FORD: I think the chances are the best in, I would
say, my 20-plus years in the Congress. The Administration
is actually submitting a recommendation for tax reform.
It is my recollection that there is no other administration
that has actually come up with a tax reform package. The
Administration backing a tax reform package, and the public
demanding one, and the Congress receptive, I think we have
a good chance of getting one.
Q
What do you think the public sentiment is
directed in that area?
MR. FORD: It covers the waterfront.
Q
Will the House pass a reduction in the oil
depletion allowance?
MR. FORD: I can't forecast one way or another on that.
There is considerable testimony for it. The Congress has had
this problem before it in the past. Previous Administrations
have never recommended it.
So I think a lot depends on what the testimony
produces.
?
Mr. Ford, aside from whether or not Congress
will go along with the lower increase in Social Security,
how about you, yourself? Is that what you want?
MR. FORD: I am going to reserve judgment until we
see what the Committee on Ways and Means recommends.
2
What about the reaction to this Federal program
for subsidies for public jobs that is going to be established?
Did you talk about that this morning?
MR. FORD: We didn't talk about that detail. This
will be discussed in the various briefings from the
Departments.
Thank you.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END.
AT 10:40 A.M. EST
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 22, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN,
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD, AND
RON ZIEGLER, PRESS SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT
AT 11:03 A.M. EST
MR. ZIEGLER: Ladies and gentlemen, the Leadership
meeting began at about 8:40 and has just concluded. Senator
Dirksen and Congressman Ford are here to give you a report
on that meeting.
Senator?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: It was a long and fruitful meeting.
We talked about situs picketing, about education, about
organized crime, about tax reform, and we had some discussion
of the present status on the Korea matter.
I think with reference to the latter, I need only
observe to you that, number one, our naval vessels are out
there; number two, the reconnaissance flights have been
ordered to continue. Whether they are actually on their
way, I can't say, but they have been ordered to continue.
They will be afforded fighter protection and insofar as
any action on our part is concerned, probably the only
thing that need be said is the traditional one: That
this country only warns once. I don't think I need say
anything more about it.
Jerry, suppose you say something about the crime
proposals.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The President is sending up
tomorrow a message on organized crime. It will provide
for more money, it will provide for more men, it will
fight against organized crime, it will provide for
some reorganization within the Department to make it
more effective in the battle against organized
crime, and it will be a very, very significent message aimed
at the worst element in crime in America.
Somebody quipped in the meeting that if they had
stock in the Mafia, they would sell it beginning tomorrow.
Therefore, with this message, and with three or four other
messages that will be following shortly on crime, I think,
the President's commitments made during 1968 will be fully
carried out and will lead to some substantial progress
in reducing the crime rate which is of deep interest to
all Americans.
MORE
(OVER)
- 2 -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I need only add to what
Congressman Ford has said by stating that there will be
extraordinary emphasis on the fact that the ill-gotten
gambling gains by the racketeers, which are estimated
at as much as $50 billion, and then go into seemingly
legitimate business, will be pursued with great vigor,
for in so doing, you can dry up those revenues and it
should be a tremendous diminution in crime.
We had a very considerable discussion about
situs picketing. The Secretary of Labor is presently
testifying before the House Committee on Labor. As you
doubtless know, there has always been a difference of
opinion with respect to situs picketing, going back
to the time when the National Labor Relations Board filed
an action against the Denver Building and Trades Council.
That wasin 1951. That went to the Supreme Court and
obviously the court sustained the position of the Labor Board.
From that day on it has been a matter of controversy,
even in union circles, because the horizontal unions and the
craft unions have not always been able to agree.
It was hoped, of course, that probably something
might be done in this field if you develop certain protective
safeguards. I am not prepared to say what those are. But
I presume that they will be developed in the course of the
Secretary's testimony.
Not the least of the items in this general picture,
of course, is this question of productive boycott. The
notable example, of course, is that Philadelphia Door case.
But that, too, will be ventilated and then I presume we will
have to see where we go from there in the face of this
controversy.
Jerry may want to say something about the educational
picture, because that is very much before the House.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It certainly is, Senator.
The House will begin today the actual reading
of the bill for amendments in the area of elementary
and secondary education, including the impacted area
legislation.
The Republicans in the House, and I think with
substantial Democratic support, will seek to reduce the term
from five to two years. We believe very strongly that
we shouldn't enact legislation which would pre-empt the new
Administration from making constructive recommendations
for revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
If you have it for a five-year term, as the
Majority Party proposes through their committee action, you
have essentially eliminated the opportunity for this
Administration to make constructive recommendations for changes
in the area of elementary and secondary education.
MORE
3
We also hope to approve a consolidation of
various education programs, NDEA programs and several
others, in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
so that you have a step forward in trying to have block
grants to give to local educators the opportunity to
decide for themselves within these four areas where
they want to put the emphasis with Federal dollars.
I am optimistic that the House will make these
several changes so that the new Administration will have
an opportunity to move forward, I think, constructively.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We discussed at some length
the President's Message on Tax Reform. You have heard
it said, I think from time to time, that there is a danger
of a tax rebellion in the country. It won't be necessary,
because the President has already demonstrated now, by
this message, and other reforms to follow, that he is
the leader of the tax crusade in the country so as
to do justice and treat all taxpayers fairly and get rid
of the tragic business of having people pay income taxes
who are in the low poverty brackets.
As you know from his message, it is anticipated
that about two million will be taken from the tax rolls.
Generally speaking, this tax package is in excellent
balance. One item that received a good deal of discussion,
of course, was the seven percent investment credit, and
for a very good reason. There probably are situations
where that seven percent credit was something of a lifesaver.
Now, this is not exactly a case in point because
that was authorized by the Transportation Department to
the Mass Transit Organization in South Chicago for the benefit
of the Illinois Central Railroad, but if it had been a tax-
payer, it would have been a case in point. But there you
had something. where you do have over more than 200 railroad
cars that are more than 43 years old, that are lobbing
about 30,000 commuter passengers from the outskirts and
the suburbs into Chicago and back.
That involves health and safety and there you
might have a very justifiable case for an investment tax
credit. But we will have to see how this works out. But
in any event, this is a good start in the whole field of
tax reform and I think it is, in the main, a very well
balanced program.
So the President deserves credit for becoming
the leader in this tax crusade for equity and fairness
to all classes of taxpayers.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was one other matter
that was discussed, and it will be in a message that will
come up either Thursday or Friday. It is the President's
proposal for an increase in various rates for the Post
Office Department, first class, second class and third class.
MORE
(OVER)
- 4 -
This is pretty technical, but it will be reflected
in a message on either Thursday or Friday.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Questions?
Q Senator Dirksen, you indicated that you think
the tax package is balanced, but you have also indicated some
reservations about the seven percent investment credit tax.
If you take that out, the package is no longer in balance
is it?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: That doesn't mean that you can't
keep essentially your whole tax package. But the question
is are there some exceptions where special situations are
involved?
I don't believe anybody would want to jeopardize
the lives of a lot of people, as in the case of the
Illinois Central, with these rather archaic railroad cars.
Suppose they don't have any money in the till with which
to get cars, then what? Fortunately, that was worked out
in a different fashion. I haven't seen it mentioned too much,
but you see that loan didn't go to the Illinois Central
Railroad. It went to this Mass Transit Organization in
South Chicago.
Q Is the Administration prepared, as you
understand it, to make exemptions and exceptions to the seven
percent?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Definitely not. I am only thinking
in terms always of what can happen in either branch of
Congress, and I don't believe in surprises. No lawyer does.
Therefore, you always anticipate and at least you discuss them.
2 Are you going to propose some exceptions?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I haven't the slightest idea and
I can't tell you off the top of my head. Maybe yes, maybe no.
2 Senator, do you think Congress this year will
make a start on the President's high priority program you
mentioned of sharing some of the Federal tax revenues with
States and cities?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: That was discussed very briefly,
because it is still in a fragmentary stage and the Treasury
has not completed its research on it.
2
Senator, what do you mean that we only warn
once?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Exactly that. The note of protest
has been filed and I think it was crystal clear. I don't
think anybody can misjudge the temper of that note. We
have our vessels out there for whatever purpose they may
have to be there for. We are giving protection to these
reconnaissance flights.
Incidentally, there have been 190 of those flights
since the first of the year. So there it is.
MORE
- 5 -
0
Senator, are you saying that we are going
to protect those flights which is obvious, from what the
President has said, or are you hinting that there might
be retaliatory strikes against North Korea?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I didn't say a word about
retaliatory. I only said that the President said, where
all the world could hear, that these reconnaissance
flights would be afforded protection; period.
0
Senator, have the reconnaissance flights,
indeed, resumed?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't know. They have been
ordered resumed.
0
Senator, what would you say would be the
proper and necessary way in which the North Koreans must
respond to our protests?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't speculate on that for a
moment.
0
What if there is no response?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't quite know the temper
of the North Korean mind.
a
Senator, the President described the resumption
of the flights as an interim response. Was there any
discussion this morning of what might be the ultimate response?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, sir.
MORE
(OVER)
- 6 -
Q
Congressman, could you tell us about the
reaction of the tax reform proposals in the House and whether
you think the Democratic tax reform is going to be
satisfied
or push forward with reforms now?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Because the President grabbed
the ball and came up with certain specific recommendations --
let me point out again this is the first President in my 20-
plus years who has really advocated specific tax reforms.
I think the public as well as the House will
respond. This doesn't mean that in the area of details that
the Committee and the Congress will be in total agreement.
But the format has been laid out for a well-balanced
tax reform message.
Incidentally, on the investment tax credit,
it was included simply because in the area of investment
for plant and equipment, there has been a tremendous
upsurge of some 14 percent.
If you are going to really carry out a balanced
effort to try and reduce the cost of living, you have to
take some action in this broad area.
We had nearly a 5 percent increase in the cost of
living in 1968. It hasn't slowed down because the momentum
was generated in 1968. There has to be some firm,
effective action in this area, along with other areas, if
we are going to dampen the thirst of inflation and this is a
necessary ingredient in any tax reform message.
Q Are you prepared to entertain some exceptions
to the 7 percent repeal?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Speaking for myself, I think
the Pres dent's request, as it came up, for it to be
effective as of yesterday, with no exceptions is the
right approach. But I would not preempt the action of the
Committee on Ways and Means or the House as a whole or
the Senate in this particular area.
I think under the circumstances, the across-the-
board approach was the only equitable way it could be done.
o
Beyond the Organized Crime and the Postal
Message, what other messages can we anticipate in
the next few days?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would say in the area of
crime, you are going to have one on obscenity, you are going
to have a message involving the narcotics traffic area, and
you will probably have one on the rights of the accused.
These will be coming along within a relatively
short period of time.
Q
Is that in addition to a general crime message?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, the four are the crime
package, but they will come up individually with the Organized
Crime one coming tomorrow.
MORE
- 7 -
Ω
There is some indication in the last few days
that if a vote were taken now in the Senate that the ABM
Safeguard proposal would not be approved.
Is that the way your votes count?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, sir.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 11:20 A.M. EST)
M Office 1969 Copy
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN,
AND CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:13 A.M. EDT
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Let me say first of all that we
had a very brief discussion of the ABM situation. I expressed
my opinion to the effect that whenever this measure is called
up to the Senate that it will pass by a comfortable majority.
Beyond that I don't think we discussed it further, except that
Jerry expressed himself with respect to the House of Representa-
tives and he thought it would pass the House by a substantial
majority.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We also talked about a message which
is coming up sometime this week on grant consolidation, which
is an effort to gettin the hands of the Executive the authority
to consolidate programs such as the Executive now has for the
consolidation of agencies and the like.
In other words, for example, I think there are five
agencies that handle sewer and water pollution. If they can
consolidate the programs with their varying formulas within an
agency, it would be highly beneficial both in cost and the
expediting of the programs themselves.
This message will come up Wednesday or Thursday, as
I understand it.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We also discussed the forthcoming
message on obscenity. The approach, of course, will be to a
modification of postal statutes so that you can put a res-
ponsibility on the mailer, make him identify the content on the
outside of the package, so that if it is sent unsolicited, the
householder or the recipient can readily identify what it is
and can either accept it or not accept it.
It probably will be offered as an amendment to
something that will be coming along very shortly in connection with
postal legislation.
It is of a rather extraordinary interest to me because
I have teed off on this general subject and on hard core
pornography over a period of time. You will remember in
connection with the last judicial nomination that it came rather
prominently into the discussion on the Senate floor. Then, too,
there was this strike down by the Court of the 27 or 28 cases
that came out of California. All of those California decisions
were nullified.
MORE
- 2 --
Then, again, it comes up in connection with this
recent film, "I Am Curious (Yellow) I understand there
is going to be a sequel called, "I Am Curious (Blue) It
is going to make "I Am Curious (Yellow)" look like some
pinkie film, and you have seen nothing yet.
But I have had an amendment pending up there and I
am going to offer it to anything that comes along which
utilizes a provision in the Constitution where Congress can
fix the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts and in this case,
you deny to them the review power of a finding by a jury
where there is a finding of fact that a given thing, whether
it is a letter, or a book or a film is indeed pornographic and
obscene.
So I intend to offer that somewhere along the line
and then we will see where we are. But it has occurred to me
for a long time that that is about the only way you can get at
it really, and get around the courts' interpretation of the
First Amendment.
Incidentally, the California legislature is considering
the same kind of legislation and for all I know, it probably
will be enacted during the course of the present session.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I might supplement what the Senator
said. The message involving obscene and pornographic material
will be, I think, very favorably considered by the House
Committee on the Judiciary and by the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service.
I think that Congress will respond favorably. The
House Committee on the Judiciary is about to report out its
version of electoral college reform. I understand following
that action it will either take up the previous crime message
or the message that will be coming on pornography and obscenity.
If I might add to what Senator Dirksen said about the
ABM, we hope to get the military authorization bill out of the
Committee on Arms Services and get it to the floor of the House.
We believe this will be a good test, because in my judgment,
the House of Representatives will substantially approve the Presi-
dent's recommendations for ABM.
The Democratic leadership, the Republican leadership,
and an overwhelming number of members of the House will support
the President on the ABM. This will be laying the groundwork,
I think, helpfully, as far as the consideration in the Senate
is concerned.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I mention the fact that the so-called
illegal gambling act, or bill, will probably be introduced
today. There will be a few sponsors from both sides of the
aisle.
I also call attention to a proposal that will be
introduced today dealing essentially with civil rights. It
will have four titles, one dealing with the selection of
juries at the State level to bring them in line with what is
required in the case of Federal juries under the Federal
Selection Act.
MORE
- 3 -
Another title deals with appropriations for the
Civil Rights Commission. A third deals with so-called cease
and desist orders, insofar as the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission is concerned.
I have taken a rather dim view of granting that kind
of authority to any commission. I recall all the discussion
we had on equivalent power given to the Federal Trade Commission.
Now it is proposing this new bill to give that authority to
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Maybe something can be said for it, if the thing is
nailed down, so that you don't impair the rights of the persons
against whom the complaint is filed and, secondly, if there is
adequate protection by reference to a Federal District Court
in the first instance so that always and always there is that
immediate right of review without prejudice of the right of
the employer or the right of the employee.
It will be introduced today, as I understand, and
there are four sponsors: Senator Javits, Senator Hart, Senator
Scott and Senator Kennedy.
So there will be a very considerable discussion about
it and I suppose long hearings, if it goes to the Committee.
But if there is a chance to have it done, I think I will contend
that it ought to be referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Q
Senator, how would you feel about the nomination
of a National Science Foundation man, of any name, should he
be opposed to the ABM?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: You say how do I feel about it?
Q
How would you feel about it?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't have any bias one way or
the other. He may have a lot of other redeeming qualities
that might overcome that.
Q
Senator, did you discuss with the President your
opposition to the nomination of Dr. Knowles?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I did not.
Q
Have you ever discussed that with him?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Never.
Q
Are you still opposed to it?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I am still opposed.
Q
Senator, did you discuss Dr. Long and the
President's statement yesterday?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No.
I
That seems to be in conflict with your feelings
on the matter.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't think SO.
MORE
- 4 -
&
Were you not reported as opposed to Dr. Long as
Director?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: When I was asked about it I said
I thought under the circumstances I might oppose him.
Q Senator, why are you opposed to Dr. Knowles'
appointment?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: That matter has been, shall I say,
adjudicated in the sense that I have nothing more to say about it.
Q
Senator, what are the chances of passage of the
bill vesting greater authority in the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission? You sound: as if you would oppose the bill that is
expected.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Definitely not. But I can be opposed
to some item in a bill without being hostile to the bill.
As a matter of fact, I think what is shaping up is very
desirable.
Q You said the matter of Dr. Knowles had been
adjudicated. I don't quite understand that.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I have made all my discussions and
that is adjudication for me. I have nothing more to say.
Q
For those of us who haven't heard that discussion,
can you give us some background?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, I don't think SO. I don't know
why I should.
Q Are you going to make it a matter of Executive
or Senatorial privilege to oppose him or allow it to go through?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: On that point, I have nothing to say
until we see what happens. If his name should appear, I can
always take a second look.
Q Senator, do you have a lot to say about the
President's appointments?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: What appointments?
0
Any?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I don't know that the President
confers with me about appointments. They are noticed up at the
Senate. They are referred to the proper Committee. The Committee
takes action one way or the other. If it is favorable, it goes
MORE
- 5 -
to the Executive calendar and at that point, as a Member of the
Senate, not as Minority Leader, but as a Member of the Senate,
I work my will. Any Senator can do whatever I can do.
Q Senator, respectfully, that would strike some
as sounding as if you are backing down on the Knowles' matter.
Is that a correct interpretation?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't propose to be lured into a dis-
cussion of the matter. Why not let events speak for themselves?
You will find out soon enough.
Q Senator, you are believed to have opposed not
only Knowles and Long, but Mr. Driver -- all three of them --
their nominations seem to have come to a stop.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: The Driver matter was suitably
venilated in the press. Mr. Driver resigned. Why should I
discuss it any further? I can only say to you when I look
into these matters, I do my homework. Put that down. (Laughter.)
Ω In terms of your homework, have you done a head
count on the ABM to back up -- do you have any kind of ratio
you think it will go by?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I have been fingering a little.
(Laughter.)
Q
You said you were confident that the ABM would pass
in the Senate. What kind of compromise is the Administration
willing to offer to get it passed?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: There is no compromise in the
offing insofar as I know.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think this was clearly stated by
the President in conversations with Senator Dirksen and myself,
that the President was not compromising. He felt that the
Safeguard proposal, as recommended by him, was the minimum
that we could undertake for our National security.
0
Senator Dirksen, in your discussion of the matter
of obscenity, you mentioned the bill you want to have Congress
fix the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. Does the President
support that bill?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I didn't ask him.
Q
Did you talk with the President this morning
about the program announced yesterday at HUD on the change
in the operation of the Model Cities program?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, it wasn't discussed this morning.
Q
Did the President express a view about the bill
that you were talking about, the equal opportunity bill, Senator?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No. We had a discussion of the bill
that is proposed, but it centered mainly on this question of
the enforcement of the cease and desist order.
MORE
.EXCERPTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE PRE CONFERENCE OF SENATOR EVERETT DIRKSEN AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD, APRIL 29, 1969.
- 6 -
Q
Did he express a view on that?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: He participated in the discussion,
without expressing a real hard and fast view.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it is fair to say that
the matter will be discussed next week or in the near future
again to try and refine it so that there is unanimity on
what ought to be recommended.
Q
On the ABM, you made a point a minute ago that
the President felt that the safeguard was the minimum that he
would accept. Was there any discussion of making some other
policy choices in the National security field which could be
tied in with ABM and in that sense placate some of the critics
on Capitol Hill?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, there was no discussion of that.
Q
Do you know what his attitude is about that?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: It wasn't disclosed and we didn't ask.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it is significant to point
out -- and this relates to some extent to what you have raised --
that there are those, I noticed yesterday, who wanted to stop
the development of a strategic bomber, thereby knocking out our
capability for long range high performance aircraft.
I
noticed there was some discussion yesterday that we ought to
knock out both offensive and defensive capability in chemical,
biological warfare. There are people who want to knock out
the ABM, strip us of any defensive capability against ballistic
missiles.
Where are they going to stop? Do they want to
unilaterally disarm America, when we have a serious threat
from the Soviet Union?
When you add up this whole package, and I think there
must be some concert in the action, I think it is a very
serious turn of events as far as the United States is concerned.
Q
Are you charging that they are intending to
unilaterally disarm America?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I am simply saying that when you
add up all of the things that I see coming from various sources,
if you make that total package -- and they achieve their
results - in effect, the United States is seriously eroding their
defensive capability against attack.
Q
What do you mean when you say a serious threat
from the Soviet Union? What is the serious threat?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: If you go back to the speech that
is often quoted in part by former President Eisenhower, not
the part about the military industrial complex, but the other
part, if you will recall, former President Eisenhower warned us
against a threat from overseas and warned us that we must be
strong militarily in order to preserve the peace and to protect
our own National security.
MORE
- 7 -
I am not naive enough to believe that the Soviet
Union is going to just roll over and take the same kind of
actions that some people in America want us to do. They are going
to be strong. We have to be strong. This may be the best way
to preserve the peace.
But if you do all of the things that some of these
people apparently want us to do, put them in a package,
I think our military situation at home is in serious jeopardy.
Q
Congressman, I think you used the word "concert."
Are you suggesting that there might be some central direction
to this opposition to the ABM and other military ---
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I have no facts on this, but I
see these several steps or recommendations or speeches being made
and I can't help but be interested and I just hope that they
are not in concert and I trust that they won't be successful
in concert.
Q
Who are you talking about, sir? Could you call
some names?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The speech made yesterday on the
floor of the House of Representatives by Congressman Max
McCarthy, in reference to chemical and biological warfare. I
can't recall who in the news yesterday advocated the stopping
of any development of a strategic long-range bomber, but as I
recall, it was some Member of the House or Senate, and, of course,
you are as familiar as I am with those who are urging that we
not proceed with the minimum program of an ABM.
Q
What do you think is their motive in this?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't challenge their motives.
I simply say that I think the Congress ought to be very alert
not to do all of the things all of these people want or we will
find ourselves in the same kind of a serious situation we were
in prior to World War II.
O
Mr. Ford, the way you used that word "concert"
gives it a devious, even a subversive element in there. Aren't
you people in concert trying to get the ABM through? What is
wrong with being in concert?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I said it may appear to be that
they are in concert, but those of us who support a minimum
ABM program are acting on the basis of a recommendation from
the President and on the basis of previous Chief Executives.
This is just one defensive weapon system that is
important to the National security of the United States,
at least we think SO. I don't challenge any motives. I
simply say on the basis of the facts this is a program
that is needed in the overall picture of our defense setup.
11
Q Has the President expressed himself about this
trend that you mentioned?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, the President has not.
MORE
- 8 -
Q
Senator Dirksen, do you share Congressman Ford's
view of this situation?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Let me simplify it. I know what I
think. I know what I believe. If I believe it hard enough,
then I will go out and get a few converts to my cause. I am
for ABM, period. If I can talk somebody else into it who has
some voting power, that will be all right, too, because I will
just ask them to share my convictions, period.
Q Senator, do you see a trend toward unilateral
disarmament developing among the opposition?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I wouldn't know. I don't pay enough
attention to it, I suppose.
Q
To that extent then, you don't agree with Congress-
man Ford?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't agree or I don't disagree.
He has heard speeches over on the House floor. I have heard
no comparable speeches over on the Senate floor except people
who are opposed to the ABM. They are entitled to their opinion.
I don't fuss about it. I don't quarrel because their prerogatives
are equal to mine as a Senator.
Q
Senator, do you think Congress will pass higher
postal rates this year?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Higher postal rates? Definitely SO.
It is absolutely necessary if you are going to protect the budget.
There has to be additional revenue. Otherwise, your deficit gets
larger and larger and goodness knows, that postal deficit
is astronomical already.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:35 A.M. EDT.)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 6, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN,
AND CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:15 A.M. EDT
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Most of the discussion this morning centered around
the Job Corps program. We had Secretary Shultz and others
who discussed it and everybody put in on the discussion.
As you know, of course, they will cut the number of
the Corps, I think, from 104 to 54 or 59, with emphasis on the
fact that no corpsman will be left out of a program because
he will have his choice, pretty well, of any camp where
he wants to go. But we are weaponed now not only with the
findings of the Secretary of Agriculture, but also a rather
extended report by the Comptroller General. I have gone
through that report in large part and also the summary. I
think a valid case is made for what the Administration is trying
to do because it will produce efficiency and objectivity.
One of the difficulties with the program today is
that even after you screen your applicants, there are, what
is it, 30 percent who don't even show up for camp and then you
get a large dropout at the end of 30 days and a larger dropout
at the end of 90 days, so that the ultimate number who graduate
who find job placement is comparatively small considering
the cost.
The direct cost is about $6,600, according to the
findings of the Comptroller General, but if you add the
indirect cost it is $8,300 per corpsman. And that is a pretty
high amount.
We think we can do infinitely better and develop
a far more efficient program. And so this restructuring, I
think, is certainly a justified approach.
CONCRESSMAN FORD: I might add that out of the 100,
for example, who are referred or accepted for the Job Corps,
only 17 out of the 100 actually are placed on a job. It is
the aim of the Administration to make available as quickly
as possible and as immediately as possible these near-city
job training facilities, and, in addition, to try and open
up, as a more practical approach, the other training slots
for those who otherwise fall into the Job Corps training
program.
It is also the aim and objective of trying to help
this particular summer in making available job opportunities
for the individuals in our major metropolitan areas.
MORE
- 2-
The approach that is recommended by the Secretary
of Labor, in our opinion, is a far more effective way from
the point of view of getting the young people trained in a
far less costly process.
J. might make one other observation. We did discuss
the Administration's program in the area of hunger. The
Secretary of Agriculture is going to appear before a Senate
Committee tomorrow and will lay out what we believe is a very
broad answer to the demands on the part of all segments of
our society for a better administration and a more effective
hunger program.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I might add, with respect to the
hunger and malnutrition program, that in the budget for
1970 there would be in direct authorization and appropriation
about $340 million. It is proposed now to add $275 million
to it.
That, of course, does not encompass other things that
are in the budget, such as school milk and other things, but
that will provide $615 million for the program.
It will, of course, be made a good deal more efficient.
Some of the waste and extravagance will be squeezed out. But
while you have both direct distribution and the food stamp
proposal, the emphasis will be on food stamps because
it appears that it can be done more effectively and more
economically.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There is one other figure that I
think is significant, as pointed out by the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget. In fiscal 1969, $24.2 billion is made
available by the Federal Government for those below the
poverty level. In the fiscal 1970 budget, recommended by
this Administration, there will be $27.2 billion available.
In other words, a $3 billion increase over the funds
available in this current fiscal year.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Do you have any questions?
0
Could you tell us the status of the NLF Treaty?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Actually, there has been no change
that I know of.
Q
I meant the NPT.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: You mean the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty. It has not been discussed and, frankly, I have not
heard it discussed even on the outside or in the Senate for
quite some time.
0
Senator Dirksen, did you discuss with the
President at all the speeches by your colleagues, Senator
Aiken and Senator Scott asking for withdrawal of American
troops?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, it was not discussed, as such.
But I can say to you, there has been definitely no change
in the Administration program. There is no retreat.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
What do you mean by that?
Q
Senator, does that mean the Administration
plans or does not plan to withdraw troops under the cir-
cumstances which the President laid out in his press
conference?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I am not in a position to
discuss detail there. All I know, I think, is, there has
been no change.
Q
From what to what?
Q
What is the position at the present time?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: What is the position? The Paris
negotiations are going forward. There may be some work
going on behind the scenes -- that is a suspicion on my part.
But we are going right ahead to see if we can't wind this
thing up in an honorable way.
O
Senator, was there any discussion of the controversy
involving Justice Fortas?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: All I can say is that it was mentioned
almost in passing, because you treated it so generously
in the press and on TV. The speeches on the Senate and
House Floor speak for themselves. Beyond that, there was no
discussion.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I might make an observation there.
I believe that this is a non-partisan issue. It has been
and it should be. The charges are very serious, including
the 11-month lag in the return of the fee. But it seems to
me that this is a problem that ought to be discussed between
the Majority Party, the Democrats, and the Republicans, to
see what is the proper course of action to take.
I think there are two areas where some action might
be taken. It seems to many in the House, particularly, that
there ought to be an examination of the distributions by some
of our foundations in the way that they have been making such
distributions; and, secondly, there ought to be consideration
of a disclosure requirement for the Federal Judiciary, just
like there is a requirement for the Executive and the
Legislative Branches of the Federal Government.
? Senator Dirksen, there are a lot of stories
appearing lately saying you have been giving the Administration
a bad time about a number of appointments. How do you feel
about those reports? Are those appointments discussed
in these meetings?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: All I can tell you is that if
I have a conviction on the subject, why, I utter it and
I think in so doing I express my fidelity to the President,
since sometimes things come to your attention that may not
come to his ears or to his ministers in the Cabinet and
obviously he accepts that in the best of grace.
I think what happened on Saturday speaks for itself.
He invited me to go along down to see Jim Byrnes and we
went to the Derby together. So if anybody wants to put it
MORE
- 4 -
on the ground that there is some feeling about it, there is not.
Now, let me just amplify that. When it came to Mr.
Brown of EEOC, I said three weeks ago to Senator Scott here
at the White House that if his name came up I would put a hold
order on him until I knew a little more about him. That
was conditioned on the fact that Mr. Brown had been nominated
in the prior Administration. He went out to California
with the Commission before he was confirmed by the Senate
and there he participated in three days of hearings. Those
I ventilated freely on the Hill.
Now, that is the reason I wanted to know a little
more about his viewpoint. He did me the honor of coming
to see me yesterday morning. We spent 45 minutes together.
I had a chance to ask all the questions I wanted. I discovered
that he was a very personable fellow. He had excellent
antecedents and he knows pretty well where he is going
and altogether I was satisfied and I announced on the Senate
Floor that I would vote for him.
Q
I would like to ask whether you feel Justice
Fortas should step down from the Bench?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I expressed no feeling in the
matter. That is a matter for Justice Fortas at the moment.
MORE
-5-
Q
Could Congressman Ford answer that question?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Would you repeat the question?
Ω
Do you feel personally that Justice Fortas should
step down from the Bench?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think that is a decision he
has to make under the circumstances.
Q
DO you favor an inquiry by a Senate committee into
the allegations made by Life Magazine about the Justice?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I am not sure that I do. I would
have to examine those allegations very carefully to see whether
there would be an occasion for action. You know that Senator
Williams made the proposal that foundations ought to be denied
tax exemption privileges if, for instance, they subsidized
or hired or put somebody on their payroll who was in public
office. But he did not limit that resolution to the Members
of the Court. He included Members of the Executive Branch and
Members of the Legislative Branch, as well, and also went sofar
as to say that for a period of two years after their exit from
public office that the terms of that resolution should apply.
C
Senator, you have always opposed disclosure by
the Legislative Branch, if I am not mistaken.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Peter, you are very imprecise in
your language. What I opposed was a disclosure of your income
tax.
Q
What do you favor disclosure of?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I disclose under the modifi-
cations of Rule 42 and 44 of the Senate. So, if you are
curious, Peter, go up to the Senate Clerk and ask to take a
look at the one I have to file under Rule 44 because I think
I am going to file it today.
0
Senator, do each of you favor a disclosure rule
or law for the Supreme Court or for the Judiciary as a whole, as
you now have for Congress and Federal officials?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: It is a matter that probably ought
to be considered, especially so now that you have raised the
pay of the Judiciary.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think I said earlier that this is
something the Congress ought to consider, to have the same
standard for the Members of the Judiciary that we have for the
Members of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.
0
I heard you say "consider" but do you personally
favor it?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the argument is persuasive
under these circumstances that it should be done.
0
Did you get a reading of how the President might
feel about that provision?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It was not discussed. I might add
just one point, because it was discussed by the President with
MORE
-6-
Senator Dirksen and myself, in the ABM controversy that we are
all familiar with, the President reiterated that he intends to
stand by the Safeguard system because it is the minimum necessity
for our national security.
O
Senator, could I go back to Vietnam for a moment?
Is it your feeling that the proposals of Senator Scott and Senator
Aiken are in fact a retreat and can we interpret your remarks
about there is no retreat"as a rejection of their proposals?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: You have to speak in the context of
time as of now. I know of no suggestion for a retreat or for
a dimunization of our troops as of now.
D
Did the Social Security proposals come up?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No.
2
Congressman Ford, could you give us any insight
as to whether there is any chance of getting the Social Security
measure through the House this year?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I was somewhat surprised by the
announcement made through the press by the Chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means. I believe there is a great need,
a great demand for some action in the area of Social Security
in 1969.
Both President Johnson and President Nixon have said
that they thought there ought to be an increase in Social
Security benefits. I subscribe to the request made by both
the previous President and the present President. I would
hope that the Committee on Ways and Means could take affirmative
action.
THE PRESS: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
END
(AT 10:35 A.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 13, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:01 A.M. EDT
CONGRESSMAN FORD: First I should explain why
Senator Dirksen is not here. He has to go up and introduce
Don Rumsfeld to the Senate Committee involving the confirma-
tion of Don as the new head of OEO.
The meeting with the President this morning was
shorter than usual. There was a limited agenda because the
President has another meeting in the Cabinet Room, I think
with Dr. Abernathy.
The subject matter primarily involved the decision
of the President, which he made this morning, to firm up
his message which is going to the Congress today on draft
revision. The message will primarily urge that the Congress
amend the present law sufficiently to give him the authority
to select nineteen-year-olds for the draft and to remove
some of the uncertainties that presently exist for young
men who come of draft age, and then from nineteen to twenty-six,
have the problem hanging over their heads.
Under the proposal by the President there will be
random selection in the nineteen-year-old category each year.
If a man is selected under this random process and it is
estimated it would be about one in six or one in seven, he
still gets the benefit of his educational deferment, or any
other deferment. However, he knows at the age of nineteen
that he is in that category, which means he will be selected
when he concludes his temporary deferment.
I think the uncertainty of all young people from
nineteen to twenty-six that they are going to be drafted has
created a great deal of concern and apprehension and this
proposal, which to a large degree is comparable to what the
draft bill was that was passed by the Senate a year or two
ago, would be a step in the right direction.
Other than that there was no discussion, except
in broad outline of the President's speech tomorrow night.
2
How soon would this new draft proposal go
into effect?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The message is coming up today.
Hearings will be held, it is hoped, in the Senate first.
As I understand it, Senator Stennis is currently conducting
hearings on the procurement proposals. I assume this
would follow those hearings in the Senate.
MORE
(OVER)
- 2 -
0
But I mean if it was approved and passed?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Probably if it is approved in the
form recommended by the President, it would go into effect
January 1.
a
What do you think of the prospects?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I hope they are good, but at the
moment it might be a little hazardous to be categorical.
I think the removal of the uncertainty for young people
going into the draft age is a very, very important problem.
I think the public wants it. I think the Congress wants it.
The Senate approved it basically two years ago. I would
hope that we can do it this year so that young people who
become nineteen next year will be affected by the change.
2
Did the President discuss the timing of his
speech and why he is making his speech now, what he is
trying to accomplish?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: He said that approximately three
and a half months had passed and he felt that it was desir-
able that he lay out the Administration's views on the
situation in Paris and elsewhere?
Q
Did he tell you what he was going to say?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, he did not.
O
Will it be a sort of State of the Union Message?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would not say a State of the
Union Message. It is a summary of the situation in Paris
and related areas.
Q
Did he talk about troop withdrawals?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, there was no discussion about
troop withdrawals, but it was said that the speech tomorrow
night would not involve troop withdrawals.
O
I was going to ask you whether it was just a
summary or will there be proposals of one kind or another,
specifically diplomatic proposals?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: This detail was not discussed.
C
Did you discuss the Fortas affair at all?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The Fortas matter did not come up.
a
You were quoted yesterday saying that you had
cautious optimism about peace in Vietnam. Were those views
reinforced today?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: My observations of yesterday
about cautious optimism were reinforced by the general
summary the President gave us.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
Did you see the speech?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I have not.
? Are you familiar with the disclosures on
Justice Fortas that the Justice Department has? Have you
been told about those and what they are?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I know nothing about the details.
I hear the rumors and read the stories, but I don't know
the details.
Q
Have you been given a report by the Justice
Department?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I have not.
Ω
Have you asked for it?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I have felt that under the circum-
stances, with the possibility of some action in the House,
that it was not advisable for me to know at this stage any
of these additional charges, if they do exist.
O
What took place in your meeting this morning
with the President to reinforce your cautious optimism about
Vietnam?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it was an accumulation
of what we have heard heretofore, that the Administration
has a deliberate plan and program, not only involving the
Paris negotiations, but military operations. I have a great
deal of confidence in the President and I think that knowing
he has such a plan and a program gives me additional hope
that we can expect some results.
Q
Is it a plan that is in force now, that is proceeding?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I assume all of the steps taken
by this Administration since January 20 in this regard are
predicated on a coordinated plan, military and diplomatic,
and I think they are.
Q Will the public be advised about such a plan
tomorrow night?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We did not get into these details,
but I assume that this speech is a part of the desire on the part
of the President to bring the public up to date on what he has
been able to do and what his future aims and objectives are.
Ω Does this plan regarding military operations
include a cutback in U. S. forces in Vietnam?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: That was not discussed.
MORE
(OVER)
- 4 -
Q
Is the plan now at the stage that the President
anticipated it would be when he took office? I imagine
he had a timetable.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We did not discuss that aspect
of it. I had the feeling the President believes things
are moving along as he hoped for or anticipated, but that
aspect was not discussed.
?
Did the President discuss at all how the other
side is behaving with respect to a settlement?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the President feels
some progress, from the point of view of the enemy, is
being made, but we did not get into the details as to what
specifically he thought was a change in their attitude.
Ω
Mr. Ford, was there any discussion of any other
messages to come or any other items on the legislative
agenda?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There were not. The draft
message was the only specific legislative matter that
came before the group this morning.
MORE
- 5 -
I
Mr. Ford, under the present draft system the Army
gets many of their junior officers from the colleges who are
in effect sidestepping the draft. Under the system where the
ROTC is being removed from the campuses, where would the Army
get the officers from, if you remove the uncertainty?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Ron tells me the details of this
will be given in a briefing here later. I would say that very
few, however, of the colleges, have actually eliminated the
ROTC, some, but a limited number. It will be interesting to
see what happens if they ever demand the removal of ROTC from
land grant colleges. You know there is a specific requirement
that a land grant college, if they expect to get Federal funds
under the Morrill Act, have ROTC. Now, to my knowledge, none
of those colleges where this problem has arisen fall in that
category, but I would be interested to see just what the
attitude will be of some of these college presidents when that
problem gets on their agenda.
I Mr. Ford, you are not going along with his premise
that a man who goes into ROTC as a volunteer is sidestepping
the draft, are you?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Personally, I do not, because
in most cases where the ROTC exists, they volunteer. I might
say I have a son who is a ROTC volunteer and I don't think he
is sidestepping the draft by taking such action.
Q
Has random selection ever been done before?
Wasn't it sort of turned down the last time?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think in World War II, when
some of us here had our numbers drawn out of the lot, that
was pretty random, and that was in effect for some four
years and some of us were affected by it.
Q
Is that the way it will work this time?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Within age categories, starting
at age nineteen.
2
Was there any report this morning or any dis-
cussion of the prospects of the ABM?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: None whatsoever.
Q
Did you discuss campus unrest and any possible
legislation?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, sir.
O
Did you get the impression that the President
is going to make any new announcements tomorrow night?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the mere fact that he is
making his first nationwide speech implies there will be something
of public interest in this matter.
MORE
(OVER)
- 6 -
2
Did you discuss the job corps?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We did not.
I
How long did the meeting last?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It started at 8:30 and we quit
at 9:45.
0
Did the President say why he decided to rush this
message through today?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no specific reason. The
Secretary of Defense was there and took 45 minutes, or there-
abouts, to answer a great many questions raised by some of the
members. This was the real core of the meeting this morning.
Q Were you briefed by Attorney General Mitchell
last week on the Fortas affair, at the Leadership meeting?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, he was there for the purpose
of talking about one of the crime messages and someone raised
the Fortas matter, inasmuch as it appeared in the Life Magazine
article the day before, but he did not brief us as such on the
Fortas matter then and the matter did not come up today.
0
Did he indicate that there was something more
on the Fortas affair other than what has been said?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I always felt those meetings, other
than what either Senator Dirksen or I give you, are executive
session, so I don't think I should go beyond what you have read
and heard the last few days.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
(END)
(AT 10:10 A.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 20, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS. CONFERENCE
OF
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
AND
RONALD L. ZIEGLER
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:35 A.M. EDT
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Good morning. I regret to say
that Senator Dirksen was unable to attend the meeting this
morning because he is out at Walter Reed for one of his more
or less regular check-ups; no crisis, no unforeseen problem.
He is simply out there for the purpose of a regular check-up.
The meeting this morning with the Leadership and
the President covered generally four areas: One, the Attorney
General was at the meeting and discussed the forthcoming Presi-
dential message in the area of the extension of voting rights
legislation. The present act expires in August of 1970. The
Attorney General is coming up to the House Committee on the
Judiciary sometime this week or early next week to make
recommendations and coincidental with that testimony by the
Attorney General will be a Presidential message proposing the
extension of the Voting Rights Act.
The Postmaster General also appeared before the
Leadership to discuss in broad terms the anticipated Presidential
message and the recommendations of the Post Office Department
for the reorganization of the Post Office Department.
Dr. Kissinger took time this morning to discuss their
estimate of the President's speech, both domestically and inter-
nationally. It was also pointed out that it was more or less
anticipated that there would be a follow-up meeting with the
Saigon government. It was reported by Dr. Kissinger that the
Saigon government is enthusiastically favorable to the specifics,
the recommendations of the President in his speech of last
Wednesday.
It was also indicated that within a week or so there
undoubtedly would be a foreign aid message from the President.
Those are the four areas we covered. I will be glad
to answer any questions.
?
In view of Dr. Kissinger's statement that Saigon
was enthusiastically favorable, why is there such a hurried
meeting with President Thieu?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't believe this could be called
a hurried meeting. It is my understanding that this had been
to some extent anticipated in the overall plans that had been
made both prior to the speech and subsequently. It doesn't
necessarily coincide with the speech, but it was a part of the
overall plan that had been worked out since the President took
office.
MORE
(OVER)
- 2 -
Q
What was Dr. Kissinger's estimate of the domestic
effect of the speech?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The domestic effect, editorial-
wise and otherwise, he reported was favorable. I can assure
you that from the mail I have received and the editorials
that I have seen from various newspapers throughout the
country, it indicates that the President got a good public
response domestically.
According to Dr. Kissinger, the survey of the news-
paper editorials world-wide in the Free World was extremely
favorable. The French press, the Indian press, the British
press, all seemed to consider it a great forward step in an
effort to resolve the problem in Vietnam.
Q Jerry, did you get an estimate from Dr. Kissinger
of the Communist reaction to the speech?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it can be best summarized
that he felt their response a day or so after the President's
speech was a rebuttal, but not a rejection.
2
Did you have a feeling that troop withdrawals would
be discussed at this forthcoming meeting at Midway?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The agenda was not discussed except
that it would include the political as well as the military, and
none of the details other than that were outlined.
O
You said Dr. Kissinger said that this meeting
between the two Presidents was more or less anticipated. What
did he mean by that; that they expected that President Nixon
would have to talk to him?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, it was anticipated that as we
move down the road trying to find an answer that the two Heads
of State would get together to make certain and positive, not
only in the present but in the future, that they would be
going down the same track.
In the past, as you know, not during this Administration,
but previously, there had been some public differences between
Saigon and Washington. I think this Administration wants to
make sure we don't make that mistake again.
Q
Are you talking specifically about the Midway
meeting?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Yes, sir.
&
Mr. Ford, was there any discussion about the
process by which the President is picking some nominees for
the Supreme Court or where that stands?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion.
Q
What is the general shape of the Post Office
reorganization that is going to be proposed?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Until we have another meeting and have
an opportunity to try and iron out some of the areas where there
are some uncertainties at the moment, I think it is best not to
discuss the details.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
Mr. Ford, is the Speaker's decision to let the
Senate take the ABM first a setback for you, for those
who are proponents of the ABM?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I indicated, I think it would
have been helpful to have the issue in the House first.
I don't think it is a setback for the Administration at
all, because I still feel that the Administration will be
successful in getting Congressional approval for the ABM
Safeguard system.
I ought to mention that in the supplemental
appropriation bill that is on the Floor of the House today
and tomorrow I am told that some of the ABM opponents
might take the initiative and try to write in some
limitation preventing the Defense Department from obligating
or spending any money for ABM research and so forth. I
personally would welcome their initiative in this regard,
because I think we might be very helpful on the cause by
giving them a pretty good licking.
Q You control the motion to recommit on that
bill. Do you anticipate you might get something to put in a
bill so you could recommit?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The motion to recommit is usually
used as something favorable for the Administration. I don't
think we would relinquish this prerogative of the minority
for a test on this. But if they offer a motion or an amend-
ment during the consideration of the supplemental appropriations
bill as we read it for amendment, I hope we can have a test on
it.
Q
But that would be a non-roll call test because
you would be in committee.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We could get a division and a
teller vote and I think you sitting in the gallery could
count the troops on either side, and I think it would
be overwhelmingly for the Administration.
Q
Are you saying we are totally in tune with the
Saigon government for the goals in Vietnam, for example, the
coalition government? In the speech it seems to me there
are wide loopholes where it would be acceptable to us and the
Saigon government has not so indicated.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I understand it, the Saigon
government approved the words, language, and the phrases
as the President gave the speech on Wednesday. There has been
no modification of the President's view and the Saigon
government endorsed it.
Q
Did you discuss at all the problem of a coalition
government?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No discussion was held on that
particular point.
MORE
(OVER)
- 4 -
Q
Just a minor question -- Ron might have covered
this this morning, and I was not here for that -- since this
meeting with President Thieu was not a hastily called meeting,
and since it could have been convened, I assumed, on June 10,
for example, since the President was going to speak at Ohio
State University on June 8, and since that is of significance,
going to a major college campus, what is your feeling at this
moment that he is not going to a major college campus?
MR. ZIEGLER: I can respond to that. I did not cover
that particular question this morning.
The date of the meeting, of course, was arranged
at a time which could best fit both President Thieu and
President Nixon's schedule, and that was the reason for the
date. As Congressman Ford indicated, the President's meeting
had been anticipated. The President has not had an opportunity
to meet personally with President Thieu since he has been in
office, and the President wanted to do this at the earliest
possible time.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Did you establish whether he has met him before
as a privite citizen?
MR. ZIEGLER: The President indicated that he has met
President Thieu on two different occasions. But he has not met
with President Thieu since he has been President, of course.
One additional fact that I didn't give you this morning
in relation to a question on this, Ambassador Bunker, Secretary
Rogers and Secretary Laird will accompany the President to
Midway.
Q
Could I ask you a corollary question? Is the
President speaking at another college commencement exercise
to make up for Ohio State?
MR. ZIEGLER: There is nothing on the schedule now.
O
Will Bunker be coming back to this country after
Midway?
MR. ZIEGLER: No. Again, the schedule is not totally
firm, but the information I can give you is that Ambassador
Bunker, Secretary Rogers and Secretary Laird will be at the
meeting in Midway.
0
Will General Wheeler be there?
MR. ZIEGLER: Those are all the individuals I have now
that I can indicate to you.
Q
You don't rule out General Wheeler then?
MR. ZIEGLER: I just don't know. As soon as it is firmed
up we will give it to you.
Q
Will Secretary Rogers be coming back here and
then going to Midway or will he go from Asia?
MR. ZIEGLER: It would be my feeling that he would be
here, but I don't have his schedule.
O
He is due back here on May 27th.
Q
Can I ask how long the voting rights legislation
will be extended for?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The actual term was not discussed.
There was at least one who raised the question of whether it
would be permanent legislation. I think this is something
that will be resolved prior to the President's recommendation,
but no firm decision was made on it.
Ω
Do you want any changes in that?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Yes, I think there can be some
beneficial changes. I think in general I can say that it will
be broadened to be all-encompassing as to geography and it will
have stronger provisions related to vote frauds, the corruption
aspect.
MORE
(OVER)
- E -
Q
Congressman Ford, did the situation on the surtax
come up and could you give us your assessment on whether the
surtax extension is in trouble in the House now?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion at the
meeting this morning concerning the proposed tax bill, the
surtax, the investment tax credit, repeal and the other tax
reforms represented by the President. But it is my personal
feeling that in the final analysis the Congress will take
affirmative action and if we don't, I think the Congress can
be charged with failing to face up to a serious economic threat,
inflation, and so forth.
So I personally strongly support the President's
proposal and I hope the Congress has the good sense to move
ahead and do something about the overall problem.
Q How about the spending limit?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion about the
spending limit. I don't mind reiterating that I believe that
the provision in the supplemental appropriation bill is good
legislation. I think the Congress will eventually approve
it in one form or another.
0
When do the messages go up?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The voting rights -- no special
date, but I would say within a week or maybe before. The
one on Post Office reorganization, probably sometime next week.
MR. ZIEGLER: Possibly.
Q
Was there any discussion on drug control, Federal
legislation, in light of the Supreme Court decision yesterday?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion on that.
Ω
Was there any discussion on Supreme Court vacancies?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:50 A.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 17, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR EVERETT M. DIRKSEN
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:45 A.M. EDT
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Good morning.
We had a rather lengthy, as you know, discussion
on three or four very important matters, the first of which
I will comment on because it is on our agenda in the House
of Representatives, the status of the surtax.
The President has had the firm assurance of the
Democratic and the Republican Leadership in the House, and
I believe in the Senate, that they would go sled-length
in getting the extension of the surtax package which is
right now, this morning, before the House Committee on Ways
and Means.
It is a three-pronged package for the extension of the
surtax through January 1 and the phase-out, the decision
of the seven percent investment tax credit, and the inclusion
of the President's proposal for removal of about 5 million
taxpayers from the Federal Income Tax rolls.
We certainly hope, in light of the support given
by the Speaker, by the Democratic Majority Leader, and by the Dem-
ocratic Whip, and the full support of Wilbur Mills, Chairman
of the Committee, that that legislation will come out of the
committee and be approved, and I think it will be approved
in the House of Representatives, certainly with overwhelming
Republican support.
It would be catastrophic, in my opinion, if this
tax bill was not approved. The economic consequences at home
and abroad are almost unbelievable. And when the chips are
down, in my judgment, the Congress will approve the legislation.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I might add to what Jerry had to
say, that I was tremendously impressed with the statement
made by Arthur Burns some weeks ago to the Leadership. He
tried to sketch out the impact it would have in Europe on
the bankers over there who are in the world scheme of things
and who might finally conclude that we refused to face up to
the fiscal problem that we have here in the country. That
was implemented, of course, by Secretary Kennedy.
So this is a must. This is highly important. And I
point out, also, that for those who are always interested in
projects and in spending that if this revenue is not
generated, obviously, you are just going to have to curtail
the expenditure budget by that much and sometimes that
becomes rather painful. So this is a very, very important
matter and I am pretty sure that when the time comes that
both branches of the Congress will rise to the occasion and
they will meet the challenge.
MORE
(OVER)
- 2 -
Perhaps I should add that one other item that we
discussed this morning was the supplemental appropriation
bill which is presently before the Senate.
There was a good deal of rumor and speculation
as to what kind of riders and amendments might be offered.
In fact, there was broad speculation as to whether something
relating to ABM might be offered in the form of a limitation
that none of the funds provided in the second supplemental
could be used for that purpose.
I prefer not to mention the names of any Senators,
but one Senator who had in mind just such a thing has decided
not to offer it. As for the so-called MIRV amendment, which
was first contemplated by another Senator, he stated very
categorically yesterday that that would not be offered either.
So insofar as I can tell there are two and possibly
three amendments to the bill. One will deal with an exemption
for the Veterans Administration; one will try to hike the
amount that has been appropriated or authorized for the
Peace Corps by 55 million; and then it remains to be seen
whether or not someone will want to amend the so-called
expenditure ceiling in order to make it more effective.
The enactment of the bill may not take too long.
I thought we would be on it for some days, but it is conceivable
that it could be finished today.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was one other item on the
agenda. The Attorney General was at the meeting and we discussed
the proposed extension of the Voting Rights Act. It will
be recommended for extension by the Attorney General in an
appearance before the House Committee on the Judiciary tomorrow,
a minimum of three years and the possible extension to five years.
There may be some proposals involved in the substance of the
Act, but I think the Attorney General is the man who ought
to speak to those.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Probably one other fact might
be noted and that is, actually, the Act does not expire
until late 1970, so there is ample time in order to give
that matter full consideration.
We had Don Rumsfeld, the Director of the Office of
Economic Opportunity, to give us a kind of a rundown
and report on what he has accomplished thus far.
He was sworn in only three weeks ago, but already
he has moved in like a regular professional. His touch is
deft; it is very good. He has brought in some advisers and
some accountants and some engineering talent that will stand him
in very good stead There is a lot of re-vamping, I am sure,
that has to be done in that agency, but I think, all in all,
he has made a very, very promising start.
MORE
- 3 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would certainly like to supple-
ment or endorse fully what the Senator said about Don Rumsfeld.
We miss him up in the House, but I don't envy his job. I am
confident he will do a first-class job and we will try to get
a first-class extension of the poverty program through the
House.
We may have to have a 90-day continuing resolution
because I doubt if we can get the bill for a two-year extension
through both the House and the Senate by June 30. I think there
is a great deal of renewed out additional faith in the program
because of Don's first-class job as the new administrator.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: One other thing was alluded to --
and I say alluded, not discussed, because I brought it up.
The Majority Leader is interested in following the supple-
mental appropriation bill with Senate Resolution 85, which is
a sense of the Senate resolution dealing with the so-called sub-
ject of national commitments.
I have done some work on it. I have conferred at length
at the State Department and with staffers and others and today
when we have our policy luncheon I will take some time to
discuss it because I think there is a residue of mischief in that
resolution that has to be brought to the attention of the members.
So, this will be rather preliminary today and then,
when we get to the Floor, if it is called up,and I fancy it will
be, then, of course, there will be a full discussion.
Q
Congressman, considering the importance of the tax
bill which you outlined to us earlier, could you profile for us
the President's attitude on suggesting that an interim extension
be granted rather than the one he has asked for?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The President feels there should be
no compromise beyond the three-pronged bill that we proposed. He
is very, very, deeply concerned about any temporary extension.
I think the Secretary of the Treasury feels, and he is joined by
all others who know the facts that a temporary extension or a
limited extension would just add fire to the situation now
in the area of inflation.
We have got to get the bill through by June 30th
if we possibly can in order to meet the challenge of inflation
at home and the economic consequences world-wide.
Q
Did you tell the President you were absolutely
certain that you could get that bill through by June 30th?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I said that we can get a bill
through the House of Representatives and will get an
overwhelming Republican support, and I hope it will come up
in the House next week so that we can get it over to the
other Body in time for them to pass it by June 30th.
Q
Congressman, just to avoid any confusion, I
am sure it is not just semantics, you said "a" bill and we
are asking about "the" bill, the one that has been proposed
by the President. You say there can't be any further
compromise. Have you assured him that you can get his
program as it is outlined now through the Congress?
MORE
(OVER)
- 4 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: If the Committee on Ways and
Means, which is controlled by the Democrats 15 to 10, reports
out the President's bill, we can get it through the House
of Representatives. There will be all ten Republicans voting
for the bill that was agreed on between the Democratic
Leadership and the Republican Leadership and if there is any
compromise it will come from the other side.
We think the agreed-upon proposal between the
Democratic and the Republican Leadership is the bill that
ought to pass the Congress and if it gets out of the 5
Committee there will be votes in the House.
Q
Then you are not sure of your voting strength
in that Committee. You have an agreement with the Leadership
and an understanding but not a count of votes?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I am firm on what the ten
Republicans will do. I just hope we can get a sufficient
number of Democrats so that the bill agreed upon by the
Leadership will be approved by the Committee so we can get
it on the floor and get it over to the other Body.
THE
PRESS:
Thank
you.
to
END
AT
10:55
A.M.
EDT
I befied 11 of 100 ew
ILNA 6 Iliw to isd
X6J to
dollaw Ilid
minodal 06
bluods
all Ilid and broyed saimoxqmoo on
YAS tuods yIqeeb yxev , YISV al
yd Deniot et ed bns ,aleel to edd Anida I
5 TO подапезхе утетодлеф 5 wonx exedto IIn
be nivorti orit bbs Bluow bottmil
10
Sets
grit
ni
is
ABOE enut vd riguords flid edd of Joe eved BW
notisIgni 10 edd desm of ni aso vídissog BW 11
bas estori ts
yletvloads SI9W JOY 900 [Ist DOV bid
0
SAFES snut dpvords Litd JOD bluoc woy terit
5 top 1160 BM bisa I
Iliw bas 10 9800H edd
in sgod I bas asotIdugeR
02 IGVO +1 ISO 9W terid 08 **** ni
he 8008 *1 not smith nt yboa
I ,notentnoo Yas Stovs of jeut 0
SW bas Iftd "6" blsa JOY Jaut ton at ti SIU8 015
beaccorg need and tarly eno ,Iftd "edj" duods prixas 916
redical YIS ed d'ass stedd yse NOY odd vd
aid Jeep 1160 UOV 36d3 mid betwees DOY svsH
Compress grit won benifico at 31 85 marpoiq
зяом
(яно)
(White House) Press Conferences ford
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 24, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(Dirksen)
THE WHITE HOUSE
PIS send to
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
MR. FORD
SENATOR EVERETT M. DIRKSEN
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
Bill T.
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 9:50 A.M. EDT
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Good morning.
Maffice Copy
The principal matter that was discussed this morning
was the situation involving the surtax in the House of
Representatives and also the prospects in the Senate.
The Committee on Ways and Means' Chairman and the
ranking Republican are going before the Committee on Rules
this morning and asking for a closed rule. The prospects
are that a closed rule will be granted and that the matter
will come before the House tomorrow, probably with an allocation
of four hours general debate and then a vote up or down.
I am confident that the House of Representatives will
pass the surtax. We will have 130 or more Republicans. I am
confident that with the cooperation of the Democratic leadership,
the Speaker, the Democratic Majority Leader and Majority
Whip, there will be more than enough votes to put the surtax
through as recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We discussed the surtax prospects
in the Senate, likewise. It is a rather singular thing, but
it has been discussed so little, either around the luncheon
table in the private dining room or in the cloak rooms, and
I presume it will not be discussed very much until the House
takes action.
But I feel reasonably confident that there will be a
pretty good vote in the House that will have a decided impact
on the Senate.
I believe, also, that the inflation issue is having
a real psychological impact in the country and that is going
to help the cause very materially. So we will get after the
problem as soon as the House has acted on it and I am pretty
confident that Senator Long will convene the Finance Committee
and then we will see where we will go from there. It hardly
needs very much attention. I would suggest that one day's
hearing would almost be enough and thereafter the Committee
could vote.
I thought maybe you might want a little rundown,
generally, on what we have in the House. Today we are going to
take up the Otepka nomination. Insofar as I know, the only speech
that will be made on the subject will be Senator Young of
Ohio.
MORE
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 2 -
We will also take up a resolution to expand the
authorization for the Food Stamp Program. It is non-
controversial. It should offer no difficulty.
There may be one or two other things and then we
will get back on Senate Resolution 85 introduced by
Senator Fulbright and passed by the Foreign Relations
Committee. There will be a substitute for it and insofar
as I can tell at the moment that may be introduced by Senator
Dodd and Senator Mundt, both of whom are on the Foreign
Relations Committee. We have had some sessions on the
matter. I have discussed it with Senator Sparkman on the
telephone, since he was in Alabama. I discussed it with
Senator Cooper. And we discussed it in our Policy Committee
last Tuesday. So this is the fruit of those efforts and
that language will be offered and, in my judgment, it, of course,
is decidedly better.
I made the point on the Senate Floor yesterday
that obviously the President must be opposed to a resolution
of this kind, regardless of the text that you undertake
to prepare, largely because it would almost look as if he were
sustaining an impairment of his Constitutional powers if he
undertook to be for it. That, obviously, he cannot do.
Probably one other point needs attention. The danger
always in a resolution of this kind, whether Senate Resolution
85 or a substitute, that it is so easy in all areas of the
world where they don't know too much about the niceties and
balances of Government in our Constitutional system, that
it could be misinterpreted and it could be misinterpreted at
home. But it offers something of a problem for every
Member of the Senate in the sense that if you try to put it
on the grounds of him embracing his responsibilities in the
field of foreign policy as a Senator and then somehow
reject the whole idea, that is a rather difficult thing to
defend. That was my principal interest in the matter.
Q
Other than the matter of surtax, what else
was discussed this morning with the Leadership and the
President?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We had a very broad review of the
legislative agenda this week and those that are in prospect
in the future as far as the House was concerned and much the
same as far as the Senate.
Q
Did you discuss the appointment of an Assistant
Secretary of HEW?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No.
Q
Senator, would you oppose Dr. John Knowles?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, now, I said weeks ago that
I am not disposed to discuss the matter. I said at an
informal press conference on the Senate Floor vesterday,
in response to all the questions, that I do not discuss it, period.
That is it.
Q
Senator, on the surtax, how soon do you think
it will come to a vote in the Senate?
MORE
- 3 -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: That I can't say. You have to
adopt a rule. Then they have to act on the bill. There may
be four hours on the rule, I should say. I hope we don't
take too much time in the Senate Finance Committee.
Once it is reported, of course, you can give it a
clear course and get action on the Floor without undue delay.
Q
Senator, what is the outlook on the ABM?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, of course, I am very hopeful
about the ABM. I think, as you look, of course, at the
polls that have been taken among the public and how they
feel, that that is beginning to have its impact here. I have
no doubt that when the time comes we, of course, will certainly
be topside. The question now is how soon can you get to it.
That involves the Agricultural Appropriations Bill. It was marked
up yesterday and the Full Committee will mark up tomorrow.
Now, some Members don't want it to come up before the
4th of July because they will be out of town. So it offers
a bit of a problem.
On the other hand, to devote too much time to it after
we return on July 7th would not be quite the thing to do
in the sense that one of the Senators and perhaps I had
better not mention his name had planned to go out to Kwajalein
and they talked him out of it on the ground that this
ABM matter might come up immediately after we returned from the
July recess.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: On the ABM, I think it is rather
interesting that the authorization bill for the Atomic
Energy Commission is scheduled for consideration on the
Floor of the House today. It was scheduled for yesterday,
but was deferred because of Congressman Bates' death. But
in this authorization bill for the Atomic Energy Commission,
there is approximately $130-some million related to the ABM.
It is almost unbelievable, but the opponents of the
ABM will not rise up and challenge this authorization in the
House of Representatives.
We would rather welcome their bringing the issue up
on the Floor of the House, but they seem most reluctant,
which is an indication to me that they know that the ABM,
as recommended by the President, will be overwhelmingly approved
in the House of Representatives. I guess they would rather
take their chances in the Senate, but I think they will be
beaten there, too.
Q
Have you been informed of any delay in the
Administration's welfare proposals?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I know of no delay.
Q
Did you discuss any upcoming messages this
morning?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No.
MORE
- 4 -
Q
Senator Dirksen, do you see any substantial
possibility that the surtax will be completed by the Senate
by June 30th?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: That is rather doubtful, I must
confess.
Q
Then in the event that it were not completed,
how will the matter be disposed of?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We will have to be thinking in the
general domain of some continuing resolutions.
C
Jerry, since the Senator's lips are sealed
on the Knowles matter, can you tell us whether or not the
matter was discussed this morning?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The matter was not discussed
this morning in the meeting with the President.
?
This morning the President went on a helicopter
tour of the Washington area. Were the traffic problems of
the Washington area discussed and did the President have
any comments?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: After the meeting broke up, the
President talked about his trip by helicopter. I think an
effort is going to be made by Secretary of Transportation
Volpe to try and break the logjam. He has been working on
it and I think he is going to pursue these efforts more
in the next day or two.
I hcpe we can end up with a coordinated freeway and
n
subway system. This is the kind of solution that is needed
to meet the ever-growing traffic problems in the metropolitan
area of the District of Columbia.
И
Q
Did you get into Vietnam at all?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: None whatsoever.
Q
Was there any report on when the Administration
will come up with its Voting Rights proposal?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: That matter was not discussed.
END
AT 10:02 A.M. EDT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 1, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR EVERETT M. DIRKSEN
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 9:53 A.M. EDT
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Good morning.
The principal subject this morning at the meeting with
the President involved a report on the action in the House and the
prospects for subsequent legislation in the House and also the
same as far as the Senate is concerned.
I would just like to make one observation about what
took place on the House Floor yesterday. I think the victory,
narrow as it was, 210 to 205, shows what a combined effort on
the part of the President, the Democratic leaders in the House,
the Republican leaders in the House, can do to achieve victory
for the American people on those issues that are very, very
important to the stability and strength of the country, such as
inflation.
Without the total combined effort of the President,
the Democratic leadership, and those of us on our side, that
victory could not have been achieved yesterday.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We had nothing specific on the agenda
this morning. It was just a run-down on both Senate and House
affairs. We have finished the Treasury-Post Office Appropriation
Bill. We have set the Agricultural Appropriation Bill. It will
be debated for the next two days and then it gets one extra
day after we return from the July recess.
After that, we take up the Military Procurement Bill
and that, of course, includes the ABM authorization.
In the Finance Committee, they are having a review of the
abuses in Medicare and Medicaid. Sometime later, they will set
hearings on the so-called Surtax. Those will probably run for a
little while, but we have only until the end of July in order to
get that job done.
I introduced the Voting Rights Bill yesterday. It was
by consent referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think,
in the main, it is a good bill and we ought to get some early
action on it, although actually the Voting Rights Act of '65
does not expire until in late 1970.
So, we will still have time for both the House and the
Senate to work their respective wills on this bill.
MORE
- 2 -
I think, generally speaking, that is about the sum total
of what we discussed this morning.
Senator Margaret Smith did make a report on the ABM and
the general discussion in the committee, the vote that took place
and the proposals for anything that may come up on the Floor.
Q
Since Senator Smith voted against the ABM in
committee, what was the nature of her report?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Just generally a narrative report
as to the discussion and how it was handled by Senator Stennis.
Of course, they saved ABM until the last minute. They disposed
of the testimony and the mark-up on everything else in the bill
until they got to that. That was the last item.
And, obviously, the members were pretty well on record
as how they felt and that accounted for the ten to seven vote.
Q
Does that ten to seven vote, Senator, look to you
like it is encouraging for passage or surprisingly hard?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, it is encouraging.
2
Do you have a count?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We do.
Q
What is it?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: As the lawyers would say, my friend,
that is a leading question.
Q
It is for passage or what?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Oh, of course. I never think in terms
of other than achievement, accomplishment, consummation and glory.
Q
On the surcharge in the Senate, apparently there
is considerable resistance there.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, we always have our troubles,
whether it is surcharge or nearly anything else. But always and
always, I have found, as you so well know, that the oil can is
mightier than the sword.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
AT 9:58 A.M. EDT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 8, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 9:55 A.M. EDT
MR. ZIEGLER: Senator Dirksen had to go to the
Hill, to the Senate Finance Committee, where Secretary
Kennedy is testifying this morning on the surtax bill,
so Congressman Ford will give you a report on the meeting.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Thank you very much, Ron.
Good morning. As Mr. Ziegler has indicated,
Senator Dirksen was here but had to go up to the hearing
in the Senate Finance Committee, where Secretary of the
Treasury Kennedy is testifying.
Before the Senator left there was a fairly broad
discussion of the urgency of the enactment of the surtax
legislation as it passed the House with the two very important
tax reform provisions in it; one, the repeal of the invest-
ment tax credit, and secondly, the recommendation of the
White House for the low income allowance provision.
It was pointed out that there may be an effort
on the part of some to delay the consideration of the surtax
package that was passed by the House and it is the strong
feeling of the President and the Administration that those who
for one reason or another delay the consideration and the
enactment of the surtax are responsible for any of the ill
effects that take place in the economy, such as the
increase in prices, the problems of inflation and high
interest rate.
It seems to the Administration that time is of the
essence, that we must act affirmatively as quickly as
possible on the surtax, the tax package, if we are to
really win the battle against inflation and if we are to
do something affirmatively in the area of high interest
rates and to furthermore prevent some economic difficulties
down the road.
I think all economists agree, from the left to the
right, that this legislation is vitally important and the
sooner the Congress acts, the more certain we will be in
winning the battle against inflation.
We have heard, all of us, some comments about the
need and necessity for tax reform. The President sent a
message several months ago incorporating some 16 very
important proposals for tax reform.
MORE
- 2 -
The President, in a letter to me last Monday,
reiterated this Administration's dedication to bona fide
tax reform. The Chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Means and the ranking Republican member have promised that
there would be tax reform legislation out of the Committee
on Ways and Means.
I hasten to add that this is the first Administration
in some 20 years I have been here, that the White House has
openly and specifically endorsed real tax reform. So the
prospects of tax reform are bright, but they should not
be mixed with the surtax proposal that is needed and necessary
for our battle against inflation.
The meeting also included a discussion of the
message which is already distributed, I understand, on
unemployment insurance proposals of the White House.
Furthermore, the Attorney General is now discussing
with the Leadership the message and the recommendations of
the Administration in reference to drugs and narcotics. The
need and necessity for this legislation is, I think, evident.
We read almost daily of serious consequences resulting from
the increase in drug traffic, increase in drug use.
The Administration is making specific recommendations.
We all know that organized crime ----
Q
When will that come?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Sometime this week, as I under-
stand it.
Is that correct, the message and recommendations
on drugs?
MR. ZIEGLER: Not necessarily this week. There is
a possibility it will be this week, but within the coming
weeks.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Frankly, I had to leave the
meeting before the Attorney General finished, so I did not
get that detail, but I assume sometime this week or in the
near future.
Organized crime really thrives on the drug and
narcotics traffic. The Federal Government has a major
interest. The President himself passed a note to me as
the Attorney General was talking with the Members of the
Leadership, and the President's note indicates that 58 percent
of all crimes in the New York and New Jersey area last year
were committed by people somehow connected with drugs and
narcotics.
I think this is ample evidence that something
has to be done on a much vaster scale than we have been doing
in the past.
Those were the major items that were discussed. I
will be glad to answer any questions.
MOPE
- 3 -
O
What program is he proposing for curbing
narcotics, generally?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Again, I had to leave before
all the details were developed by the Attorney General.
Before I left the Attorney General was talking about a
change in the control of distribution. There was to be a
proposal involving import controls. There was a proposal
that would give some greater flexibility in penalties. There
apparently is a tendency on the part of courts and juries
where there is this hard, mandatory, tough sentence to not
have as many convictions as you might have if there was a
lesser penalty and more flexibility given to the courts.
2
Are you speaking there of easing up on the
penalties on marijuana?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Again, we did not get into the
details, or at least I was not there when those details
were discussed. But there has been a tendency on the part
of juries and the courts themselves where the penalty is
hard and inflexible, to not have as many convictions.
What we need, I think, is more flexibility in the sentencing
where there has been a conviction, and one of the proposals
incorporated in this area would involve that area.
0
Earlier you mentioned the need to do something
about the high interest rates. At the meeting this morning
did you get into Mr. Kennedy's meeting with those bankers,
and Mr. Patman's charges with regard to that meeting?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We did not get into that
specific, but we related high interest rates to the
surtax proposal. I think it is recognized by everybody
if we don't pass the surtax, the probability of higher interest
rates is a foregone conclusion. If we pass the surtax proposal,
then the probability on the other hand is that interest rates
will ease and will go down rather than up.
O
Is the Administration prepared to compromise
if necessary to get the surtax through the Senate?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The Administration feels that we
must pass the surtax now, and that as long as the Administration
is categorically on record by a message and by a letter for
tax reform, there is no need and necessity to combine the two.
Q
Mr. Ford, will you accept the additional tax
reform proposals tied to the surtax?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The Administration is against
additional tax reform proposals at the present time. They
are committed for tax reform at a later date during this
Session of the Congress. It seems that the House bill is
the best vehicle.
Q
Suppose somebody in the Senate comes up with enough
strength to insist on some additional tax reform?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Well, of course, the Senate will
work its will, and the conference between the House and Senate
will try to compromise whatever is included in the Senate
version in the House version, but the Administration feels very
MORE
- 4 --
strongly that the closer the bill can be to the House version
the better, and time is of the essence.
0
Was there any discussion about the increasing
cost of medical expenses in the country and the anticipated
announcement on Thursday in regard to that?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Indirectly there was a discussion
of it with regard to the increases in the cost of living
in the last year. I think Secretary Shultz said that 60
percent of the increase in the cost of living in the last
year related to two principal factors; one, that which you
mentioned, and secondly, construction costs. But it was only
in reference to the overall, not on a specific point.
&
Was there any discussion about Mr. Nixon's
Asian trip or the trip to Romania?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: None whatsoever.
2
Mr. Ford, why should there be opposition to
accepting some tax reform now with the surcharge?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It is a matter of delay. If the
Senate gets into a long debate, a prolonged discussion of a
multitude of reforms at this time, it will inevitably delay
the war we are waging against inflation, and as long as there
is this firm commitment by the Administration for tax reform
during this Session, it doesn't seem necessary to have tax
reform attached to the surtax bill.
O
Congressman, is it true that the House will not
vote this year on the President's draft proposal?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The House Committee on Armed
Services, I hope, will consider the President's draft changes,
recommendations for revision in the selective service, as
soon as they get through the necessary military procurement
authorization bill. I would hope that the House would have
such a chance in 1969.
O
Was anything said about revenue sharing?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Not this morning, no.
Q
Was anything said about the lull in military
activity in Vietnam?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion of that
this morning.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:10 AM EDT.)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 15, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR EVERETT M. DIFKSEN
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:25 A.M. EDT
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I am glad to see everybody is
in good form this morning.
We had a very long and interesting discussion.
Obviously, it had to begin with this question of taxation.
We spent at least an hour and a half, and maybe more, on
the Senate Floor yesterday to unconfuse and to clarify and
at the long end of that discussion, I am not at all sure
whether it was clarified or not. Probably there will be
further clarification as we go on.
But there is one point that I would like to
accent and if it is humanly possible, we shall have to
drive for the surtax and those other things that may be
necessary.
I will have a series of conferences on the Hill
today and then see where we go and probably have some kind
of an expanded statement to make, but for the moment, I shall
content myself by simply saying to the group that this is
the Number One order of business and we have to get this
consummated, if at all possible, before the recess begins
on the 13th of August. So I am going to devote a major
share of my time to that very business.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The other listed item in the
discussion this morning was a prospective message that will
come up probably this week, but if not, early next week,
on the population crisis. It will have two basic parts:
One, there will be an emphasis on pushing more rapidly
in the United Nations for a Commission on Population,
and action in the United Nations in that regard, and secondly,
the establishment of a Commission on Population Growth
within the United States.
This is a very important message. The President
gives it high priority and as I said, it will probably
be coming up this week or the first part of next week.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: There was an allusion, of course,
to the ABM debate that is presently occupying the attention
of the Senate. It is problematical how long this will run
and when we will get around to a vote on the first amendment
that may be offered. But I can foresee that this might run
for quite a considerable period and that may be the order of
business for quite awhile. The position is identical with
what it was before.
MORE
- 2 -
I How do you propose to change the Majority
Leader's mind on combining the tax reform with the surtax?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Yesterday, Peter, you may recall
that he said he would call up the so-called surtax, which
could be singularly or a package deal, if there was a mean-
ingful reform bill on the calendar at the same time.
Now we have adopted a procedure in the Senate Finance
Committee under which everybody has been urged to get his
amendatory reform matters in bill shape so that it can be
incorporated in a committee print. That will be the predicate
for the balance of the hearings.
The hearings are already becoming slightly repetitious
and I doubt whether they will have to run very long. I
say that because in my book it is entirely possible that we
can have a package deal with the surtax and possibly the
investment tax credit on the calendar and also have a reform
bill on the calendar.
But I must say that failure to get the meaningful
reform bill on the calendar can obviously not deter us from making
a drive for the surtax.
Ω
How do you define "meaningful"?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't define it. You define it
for me.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I might add, in reference to
reform, all of you are fully cognizant of the really meaningful
reform bill that is being worked on and I think will be
reported by the House Committee on Ways and Means, certainly
by the time we recess in August. This is going to be a strong
reform bill and it conforms with the recommendations of the
President and the commitments of the Chairman and the ranking
Republican on that committee.
So there is no violation of the good faith agreement
that was made on the Floor of the House that we are going to
have reform legislation in the tax field early in this next
month or the following. Certainly with this commitment on
the House side there should not be any question about affirma-
tive action on the Senate side.
SENATOR DIREKSEN: Peter, I didn't mean to be facetious.
Q
I thought you did.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, let me explain. There is a
Senator, for instance, who has already lobbed a bill into
hopper to be put in this package, and dealing with excess
profits. Actually I don't know that this is in the field of
tax reform as such. There are four or five amendments sprouting
around dealing with Social Security, modifying benefits, and
that, in turn, requires modifying the base and modifying the
tax.
In my lexicon that is not exactly tax reform, so
when I say meaningful, I don't quite know what they embrace in
that term. It was very honestly said.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
Mr. Ford, if the House bill is not going to be
ready until you go out in August, then doesn't the Senate
bill have to wait on the House bill?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: According to the Constitution,
of course, a tax bill has to originate in the House. But
I think the amendments the Senator may be talking about could
be attached to the surtax bill that has some tax reform in
it when it gets on the Senate Floor. That is a possibility.
But under no circumstances should this problem of reform
deter affirmative action, and I don't think it will in the final
analysis in the enactment of the surtax legislation.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Sarah, we have one tax bill on the
calendar and others in the committee. Those we can amend in
any form we desire, so, of course, that can be done, and
we do have considerable parlimentary latitude in that field.
Q
Senator, are you concerned when Congress goes into
recess and Senators go back into their home States for a period,
that they will run into popular opposition to the surtax,
and therefore make it more difficult for you if there is a
delay?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: They probably will run into a
better climate than we anticipate, because inflation is
really getting in its licks on people, and we are beginning
to hear about it in a big way. Besides, your editors are
now coming out with the strongest kind of editorials that
this inflation has got to be licked and it starts with this
surtax.
Q
Did you discuss the Asian trip or how critics
help Hanoi?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, we did not.
Q
You said you were going to have a series of
conferences today. Would you tell us who you will be meeting
with?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I prefer not to, if you don't
mind, because I never try consciously to telegraph a punch.
Q
What do you think is going to happen when the
vote comes on the ABM?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I am confident we are going to
prevail.
Q
Other than the surtax, the AMB and the population
control message, were there any other items taken up this
morning?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Those were the items principally
and there was a lot of discussion pro and con on all of them.
Q
Senator, there has been considerable talk that
a compromise might be necessary on the ABM and it is being
considered in the Administration. Do you see any need for
compromise to get a favorable vote?
MORE
- 4 -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I just say perish the thought.
There is no compromise.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Certainly there is no need for a
compromise on the House side. The President's program will
be approved in the House and there will not be any deviation
from it. As far as I understand it, the President is very
firm that there will be no compromise on the program he submits.
O
Senator Dirksen, do you have a count on the ABM
now?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: If I did, it would have to remain
undisclosed.
Q Can you tell us whether or not the count you
have, Senator, is the father of your confidence?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I think when I said we shall
prevail, you remember the old song, "We Shall Overcome."
0
Did you have any disclosures about the welfare
message?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No.
9 Senator Dirksen, since the vote on the ABM,
whatever the figure is, is so very close, can you tell us
what basically bothers those who are in disagreement with
you and those who are with you? Basically what bothers them?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: You know what the makeup of a
Senator is when he has come here and sat at the feet of the
gods and absorbed the tradition of the Senate and become
familiar with his prerogatives, and when the news starts working,
obviously he comes to conclusions and he develops convictions
of his own. So I am on one side, somebody else is on the
other, but that has been the very nature of free parlimentary
government. These different points of view come together
and we always hope that the best point of view will prevail.
2
Senator, would you want me to repeat my question?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: You repeat it for me.
Ω
With all due respect, I was wondering truly
whether you could tell us, is there any one point that
bothers those in disagreement with you on the ABM?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, the first point of view is
that here is a request from the Commander in Chief for
what we might describe as an défensive weapon. The
opposition might be set down into three different categories:
Those who believe that this is not the time to give it to
him, those who believe that they will give him part of a package
that doesn't involve the weapon, and those who are willing to
give him some components, but nothing more.
It is an honest point of view, but we believe when
the Commander in Chief, who is the Commander in Chief, under
the Constitution, of the Army and the Navy of the United States --
that is the language of the document -- makes this request, he
has the prime responsibility for the security of this country,
MORE
- 5 -
and unless you can make a good case against him, we ought to
give special heed to his request, because, one, it would have
to be fortified and is fortified by the National Security
Council; secondly, it is fortified by the best military
advice he can get; and third, it is fortified by the best
scientific advice that he can get in Government.
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
END
(AT 10:37 A.M. EDT.)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 30, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:35 A.M. EDT.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Those of us who come from
Michigan are accustomed to an announcement, usually in
the Fall, of a new model announcement, and particularly
if you have the name Ford, that is more or less traditional.
It is my pleasure to introduce a man to you that
all of you know and have known for a good many years, my
new partner in the Republican Leadership, Hugh Scott.
SENATOR SCOTT: Thank you very much, Jerry. I
wish it were a more streamlined model.
I would like to say at the beginning that I really
do look forward to this inquisition period, having lived
through somewhat similar periods.
On one point this morning, the President has made
a statement indicating that since it is the will of the House
of Representatives, and since he has had additional informa-
tion, that he intends to support the Constitutional amend-
ment providing for the direct election of the President and
Vice President.
In the Senate Judiciary Committee, the subcommittee
originally recommended the district plan, which I supported
from the subcommittee to the full committee. It is probable
I will still vote that way in the full committee. It is
even more probable that the full committee will report out
the direct election plan.
I have said that I am in favor of any plan on
which the Congress can agree, and if they do so report
it out, I will support the direct election plan.
I have never spoken against it other than to say
that I thought the district plan had a somewhat better
chance of approval by the States. We now find, especially
from some surveys made by Senator Griffin, that only a
couple of States seem to be disposed against the direct
election plan.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It was noted by the President
this morning that he signed, I think yesterday, the first
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1970, which is about
two months later than the beginning of the fiscal year.
MORE
- 2 -
It is my best recollection that this is the latest
date that the first appropriation bill has been put on the
President's desk for his signature. I think this is an
indication that the Congress is not moving as fast, not
only in appropriation bills, but in all legislation, as
the Congress should. We hope and trust that in the
remaining weeks, or perhaps months, of this Congress that
there will be more action on the various legislative programs.
that the President has sent to the Congress.
I trust they will, and if they do act more promptly
and more effectively, then I think the President, in the area
of crime, in the area of fighting inflation, will have a lot
more tools to do the job.
We also discussed, as I suspect you might have
thought, the situation involving Vietnam. It was the view
of the President, it was the unanimous view of the Republican
Leadership, and I think we reflect the overwhelming majority
of the American people, that there must be action on the peace
front, and there must not be capitulation or "bug-out" in
our conflict in Vietnam.
It was the feeling that the President's program
of working in Paris for meaningful negotiations and at
the same time, in the long run, seeking the replacement of
American troops by Vietnamese forces, that we were on the
right track for peace, and that those who wanted to set a
deadline five, 18 or 20 months from now for a withdrawal,
were, in effect, undermining the peace negotiations in Paris
and directly prolonging the war.
The Administration believes that the quickest
way to end the fighting, to end the casualties, is to
have flexibility and to convince the enemy that the
American people are unified for action at the peace table
and for action in ending the war.
The various resolutions that have been suggested,
in effect, close the door to peace until December 1, 1970,
or later. The Administration, those of us in the Congress
on the Republican side, want quicker action, not delayed
action.
SENATOR SCOTT: The Administration is on a peace
course. The American people and the Congress clearly,
in our judgment, oppose these cut and run or "bug-out"
resolutions. We believe that that will, in time, become
very clear as public sentiment expresses itself.
In regard to the October 15 demonstrations, I
would suggest that those people who want to demonstrate
ought to demonstrate against Hanoi. This Administration
has brought about changes. Instead of gradualism upward,
we have something better than gradualism downward, not
only in the de-escalation through troop replacements,
the de-escalation of draft calls, laying a solid May 14
peace proposal on the negotiating table, meeting the problem
of a new government in Hanoi; but during all of this time,
very few of these volunteer advice givers, who will gather
on the 15th of October, seem to have thought of the fact
that it is Hanoi which is inflexible and not the U. S. It
is Hanoi which has made no visible moves and not the U. S.
MORE
- 3 -
I would suggest that Americans demonstrate against
the real adversary, which is the government of Hanoi, and
not the Government at Washington.
Q
Senator Scott, yesterday I believe you
introduced or spoke out against these resolutions on the
basis that you would like a 60-day moratorium, shall we say?
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes.
Q Do you have any reason to believe that in 60
days from now there will be a speed up in the pace of the
peace efforts on the part of the Administration?
SENATOR SCOTT: Senator Griffin and I were discussing
this before I made that statement and after. We are both of
the opinion that we should select some rather arbitrary
period, since people have been talking dates for withdrawal
and since once you set a date, you might as well call the
negotiators home if you believe that way, and rather than
think in terms of a remote 15 months date for the withdrawal
of troops, which meanwhile handcuffs our negotiators, we
suggested a shorter period of time as a proposed "quiet
period" for a united front, a demonstration to Hanoi on
the part of Americans.
I think perhaps a withholding of so much volunteer
expression might be a small contribution which each of us
can make to peace.
Q What about at the end of that period, are we
going to expect to see you support the resolution by Senator
Goodell, for example, if no progress has been made?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, you will not see me supporting
any resolutions which second guess the responsibility of
the Government at Washington and of the President.
What I am saying is that at the end of 60 days,
let's take another look at it, but at least let the
President have an opportunity to find out from the new
government at Hanoi whether there are some chances for
reciprocal responses.
Q Senator, in your reference a moment ago, are
you saying, in effect, that if a peace has not been achieved
by, say, the end of 1970, we may as well bring the negotiators
home from Paris?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, I am saying that if we were to
take seriously the various troop withdrawal resolutions
fixing a remote date like 15 months from now, that is
equivalent to their saying that there is no point in having
the negotiators in Paris, and why not bring them home
now, because if you say we are definitely going to withdraw
troops in December of 1970, Hanoi is immediately going to
do nothing at the peace talks, continue their aggressiveness,
and this undercuts the negotiators and no purpose is served
in having them there should such a resolution pass.
MORE
she 4 -
Q
Senator Scott, I noticed the advertisement
calling for the October 15 demonstration was signed by two
Republican Senators, among others. What do you propose
to do about it?
SENATOR SCOTT: I propose to make my own views
clear, which I am trying to do here. I am not quarreling
with individual Senators. I am just expressing the same
right to an opinion as they are expressing.
Q Senator, Congressman Ford both of you -- we
have been told that the Administration has a ceiling beyond
which they will not go as far as troop reductions if there
is no response from the other side.
Does the President, as far as you know, have any
time in mind beyond which he will not go as far as perpetuating
the war or allowing this war to continue?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I know of no ceiling below which
the Administration will not go, regardless of the negotiations
in Paris. The amount and the timing of our troop withdrawals
in Vietnam depend on other factors, such as the capability
militarily, of the South Vietnamese forces to take over and
do the job in a replacement way, and the continuing decline
of infiltration which, I understand, is now somewhere
between one-third and two-thirds lower than it was before.
Those are the factors that I think will determine
whether we add to the withdrawal that has already been
started. They can continue, and I trust will continue,
regardless of the activity in Paris.
Q
Was any assessment made of the lower level
of fighting that has been going on in Vietnam for the
past month or so?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no specific discussion
of it this morning, although by inference it was brought
up because of the lower infiltration rate, the overall
reduction in what the enemy was doing. This is encouraging.
On the other hand, the adamant, anti-peace
efforts of the enemy in Paris was discouraging. The new
government in Hanoi apparently is taking a hard, hard line.
What we have to do is to convince them, as the
President has been trying to do for the last eight months,
that we are willing to negotiate. They are the enemies
of peace, those in Hanoi at the present time, and apparently
at least for the time being, are more adamant than Ho Chi Minh
was.
Q
On another subject, were the President's
social security proposals discussed, and the second point,
do either of you think that Congress can be held to the
ten percent increase which he proposed?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: First, the matter of social
security was not discussed this morning. I would hesitate
to say what the Congress will do on social security as to the
amount until it had some hearings and we get a better reading
on it.
MORE
- 5 -
Q Senator Scott, on the electoral reform, what
do you think of the prospects of the Senate carrying the
Administration's proposal?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think in the light of Presidential
support, the prospects are pretty good for passage by the
Senate. I have become more optimistic of its chances
of passage by the necessary three-fourths of the States.
Q Do you think it would be done in time for the
1972 elections, when President Nixon might be expected to run
again?
SENATOR SCOTT: I should think we could. There is
no guarantee of that time element being met, but I suppose
we could.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it is feasible, but the
odds are no better than 50-50. If the Senate should act before
we adjourn this year, and then it is available to the respective
States early in 1971, I think it might be done, but I would
not be gambling any more than 50-50 that it would take place.
SENATOR SCOTT: The normal progression of the
ratification of a Constitutional amendment is usually longer than
one year, so the odds, I think, would be against it.
Q Both of you used the term "bug out", and I
think Senator Scott said "cut and run," to describe these
resolutions.
SENATOR SCOTT: I originated the cut-and-run phrase
around Washington. (Laughter.)
2
Does the President share your characterization
of those resolutions?
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes, sir.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I can say affirmatively, to second
what Senator Scott said, that the President does feel very
strongly that these resolutions which inevitably prolong
the war and then lead to a bug-out are not in the best
interest of the United States at this time.
Q Senator, are you saying then that everybody
who backs the October 15 demonstrations would be in favor
of the bug-out solution?
SENATOR SCOTT: In the first place, I don't know
who they are; I don't know how many there will be. I don't
think many will know why they are gathering in the first
place, and those who do are bound to disagree and will
develop into all sorts of factions from the extreme-like left
to any other area not presently occupied.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would say that there was no
statement by Senator Scott or myself that those who signed
that petition and those newspaper adds are saying what you
allegedly said.
MORE
- 6 -
What Senator Scott has said and I reiterate,
is that those who are demonstrating on October 15 could
achieve much more, accomplish a great deal more, if
they would direct their pleas to the new regime in
Hanoi and also to the Soviet Union, the Kremlin in Russia.
Q
Do you really think the regime in Hanoi would
be affected by that?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Yes, I think it would, and
this is quite interesting. In the last eight months,
because of President Nixon's changing the atmosphere so
that we have made a specific program in Paris for peace --
I think it was May 15 -- world opinion is on our side in
this overall situation, and if Americans on October 15
would direct their attack at Hanoi and would plead to
Hanoi for action at the peace table, I think it would,
in addition, further world atmosphere on our side and
against them.
0
Congressman Ford, do you think in this same
eight months that American opinion as opposed to opinion in
other countries, has shifted toward the Administration's views?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: My impression from various
questionnaires that I have seen on the Hill and all over
is that the American people, when they look at the results,
which is a withdrawal of American forces instead of an
escalation of the commitment of American forces, the drop
in American casualties compared to any previous period in the
last two years, as a consequence of the results, are favorable
to the policies of President Nixon.
On the other hand, they would be very much opposed
to a continuation of the policies of the previous Administration
which was an escalation of commitment, an escalation of
casualties.
Q
Senator Scott, on this 60-day period, the
answer you gave about an arbitrary date produced an image
of the President's political friends asking for more time
and trying to extend what is left of a possible honeymoon
for the President; this buying time to save him the embarrass-
ment of dissent -- I think the question I am aiming at is
on picking this date of 60 days, is it based on something
the President told you?
Does he expect to know something in 60 days?
Is 60 days a period of a test?
SENATOR SCOTT: Your question editorializes a little.
I would say that my other answer is still mature, ten
minutes later, and that is that the suggestion comes from
Senator Griffin and myself. It is not a request of the
President. It is a thought which we share and we believe
many share, that perhaps people ought to show a little
more discipline in recognizing that the President has the
toughest job in the world, an inherited one, and that during
that 60-day period we earnestly hope that conditions may
change which would permit the kind of report at the end of
that time which would justify this suggested quiet period.
MORE
- 7 -
We believe that at peace talks in Paris, Hanoi
is attempting to and probably does cite divisiveness
in America as the reason why the American negotiators
are not to be respected or listened to in specific
instances.
We would like to deprive Hanoi of the opportunity
of citing American divisiveness as an argument as to why
they should do nothing. This was the proposal.
I know the press are quite convinced that this
came from the President, but actually it did not.
Q Well, are you suggesting, or is this sort of
an oblique suggestion or plea or request that these October 15
demonstrations as now structured not be held?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, indeed. I believe in absolute
free dissent. I believe in the right of people to express
their own views, and that is why I am expressing mine.
That is why I am saying to other Americans, it would be
nice, it would be helpful, it could even be considered
a recognition of the fact that the Americans are trying to
end the war, and you might want to help them a little, if
you watch what you say.
On the other hand, I would defend to the death
the right of every man and woman in this country to be foolish
if they wish, or to disagree in all events if they insist.
I would express a hope that they would give us some
breathing period.
Q
Are you saying that after 60 days, it would
be all right if things do not change?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, I am saying after 60 days,
let's take another look at it. This war has been going
on for about six years, and at the end of 60 days, let's
look and see if other developments indicate that this
Administration has made progress on the road to peace.
Q
Are you calling for a counter-demonstration
on October 15?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, I am simply saying that
whatever demonstrations there are ought to be at least
in the framework of not making the job of achieving
peace more difficult.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 11:00 A.M. EDT.)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 7, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:45 A.M. EDT
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Good morning.
There were two major matters discussed at the Leadership
Meeting with the President this morning. I will discuss the
one and Senator Scott will discuss the second.
Secretary Laird was at the meeting and re-emphasized
the absolute need and necessity for Congressional action in
draft reform.
He pointed out that under existing law a young man
is in jeopardy, he is uncertain as to his military future
for seven years. And the President has requested of the Congress
that action be taken to amend the existing law so that a young
man reaching the age of 18 has one year where he knows whether
or not he is going to be called to military service.
The President said again and again, and the Republican
Leadership agreeswith him entirely, that one of the highest,
if not the highest, priority items on the Congressional
legislative agenda is draft reform. We are going to push
to the maximum to get some action in the Congress as soon as
possible.
SENATOR SCOTT: The other matter which occupied
a considerable amount of time is the fact that the President
will on Monday send a message to the Congress to be released
on Sunday.
This is in some ways an unprecedented message on the
status of legislation, pro and con. It will discuss -- and not
in a partisan spirit -- the problems of cities, crime, job
training, reform of the draft, and welfare and so forth, and
will, of course, make the point that the Congress can always
act on these measures and indicate some reasons as to why
action is most important and imperative.
I would like to add that this is a reform program
of the Administration and we are asking the help of responsible
Democrats and Republicans alike, that this is no time for
so-called super partisanship.
MORE
- 2 -
We recognize the two-party system and its general
operation. But there are 40-some Administration programs
pending, all of which have departmental reports attached; over
2,000 reports have been sent up altogether.
This message is likely to point out that the President
seems to restructure Federalism through reform of the draft,
reform of welfare, revenue sharing, electoral reform, which
is the first change there in over 50 years, a D. C. Delegate
in Congress which has passed the House, the commission to
draft Home Rule provisions for the District, postal reform,
the first major devolution of a public program to a corporation,
the hunger proposal with adequate diet for all persons, the
population message on which other Presidents have talked and
this President has acted, the crime bills, and special
emphasis on the need to do something about narcotics.
As I have said before, I think this is a most bold
and innovative program in many years. And I would add the
tax relief and reform proposals which were first submitted
by the President, I believe, in April, his peace proposal
of May 14 and other measures.
Q
Senator, did you discuss Judge Haynsworth and
his present status?
SENATOR SCOTT: We did not discuss Judge Haynsworth
in this meeting at all.
Q
Was there any discussion of Laos?
SENATOR SCOTT: There was no discussion of Laos.
Q Senator, I am not quite clear on what this
Sunday message is. Is this a message in which the President
is appealing to the Congress to pass all of the programs
that he has sent up since he took office?
SENATOR SCOTT: We have not seen the message yet.
But I understand that the message will be a summarization in
categories of the legislative recommendations he has made,
that he will point out the necessity in the public interest
for the passage of this legislation, will discuss the
relative functions of the Presidency and Congress in this
regard, and will strongly urge that the Congress act as soon
as possible.
It will not be from his standpoint a message, as I
say, on a partisan spirit. Some of us feel that the Congress
has been slow. And, speaking for myself, I would define the
51st State of the Union, and it is the state of lethargy, which
is overwhelmingly Democratic.
Q Senator, why do you think the Congress has been
slow? Has there not been enough push behind the Adminstration's
programs? Did they go up later than usual? What are the
causes?
MORE
- 3 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I think that is the opposition's
thesis, which cannot stand up. In the first place, the
Administration's proposals were accompanied by the Executive
Departmental reports.
So to complain that the reports weren't there doesn't
hold water.
If an individual Congressman submits a proposal for
the relief of John Smith, there may be a delay in getting the
report as it goes through. Individual Congressman at times
have not had all of their reports back. But insofar as the
Administration is concerned, and with many others as well,
there have been over 2,000 reports. So it is not the fault of
the Administration that the Congress hasn't acted.
The Congress is suffering not from a lack of material,
but from a sort of political indigestion.
Q
Senator, something like postal reform, Republican
leaders on the House Post Office Committee seem to be among
the biggest opponents of the program. What do you do about
that?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think I would rather have Congressman
Ford handle it since it is in the House.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't think it is a fair accusation
to say that the Republican Leadership on the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service are at fault. The ranking Republican,
Congressman Corbett of Pennsylvania, has voted to consider the
Nixon proposal for postal reform. And I think about 90 percent
of the Republicans on that Committee have indicated their
support for bona fide, legitimate, progressive postal reform.
We have had some Democratic support, but there are
not enough Democrats on the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service who will go along with meaningful postal reform.
And the net result is the whole issue of postal reform is on dead
center in the House of Representatives.
I believe that the American people, being alerted as
they are by Thruston Morton and Larry O'Brien, are going to
demand some action. They will point the finger at the Congress
if we don't do something in postal reform.
Q
Congressman Ford, there was a story in print
this morning that the White House and Republican Leaders have
agreed on a figure of $750 million for water pollution under
this bill that is coming up soon and are asking Members of
the House to support that. Could you tell us whether that
is correct?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The House Committee on Appropriations
has approved a figure of $600 million, which is more money
than the Administration has asked for for water pollution.
It is my understanding that the Administration is
standing with its budget recommendation, which is the same that
was proposed in January by the Johnson Administration, and the
Congress, in the House this week, Wednesday or Thursday, will
fight it out on whether or not the $600 million is the right
figure.
MORE
- 4 -
I understand the Administration will stand by
their previous decision.
Q
Which is what?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: $214 million.
Q
Congressman, did you discuss this morning the
movement in Congress to support the anti-war demonstrations
on the other side, and the movement to support the President's
program and what effect it might have on his policy?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We didn't discuss that issue in the
Leadership Meeting.
I would make this observation: That some 100-plus
Members of the House yesterday endorsed a resolution that
had bipartisan support endorsing President Nixon's program
to phase out U. S. military personnel and phase in South
Vietnamese military personnel in Vietnam.
This bipartisan support of over 100 members, better
than 25 percent of the Members of the House, was a backing
of President Nixon's withdrawal program.
I might add, as another feature, that when we come to
October 15, I would hope that those who are protesting would
look at what has been accomplished by this Administration
since January 20.
President Nixon is for peace. He has proved it
by the de-escalation of our commitment in South Vietnam. He
has proved it by his constant efforts in Paris through the
eight-point peace plan, which was submitted in May.
I hope and trust that some of these professors will
point their finger and indicate their plea toward Hanoi and
support the President in his efforts toward achievement of
peace.
Q
May I ask, Senator Scott, there is a story this
morning, Senator, that Administration officials are concerned
with suggestions of a possible breakthrough like yours might
contribute to an atmosphere of false optimism. Are you concerned
about that?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, I am not concerned about false
optimism, because I am not encouraging false optimism.
I think that my suggestion of some 60 or 90 days
quiet period would indicate that the lessening of devisiveness
or partisanship would give us a far better chance to have
something happen in the Vietnamese negotiations.
In the demonstrations, I would be glad to offer anybody
a hand-made sign saying, "Hurry up, Hanoi," because that is the
problem here.
Q
Senator Scott, you referred to Congress suffering
from political indigestion. Do you think the Administration
has sent too many programs up there?
MORE
- 5 -
SENATOR SCOTT: We have not had any complaints to that
effect from the Congress. But what we have had up there is a
more lethargic attitude, that "if it is good, why hurry it,
because the Nixon Administration might get credit."
I hope that will be superseded. Not everybody is
super partisan on either side of the aisle. That is a relatively
small and knotty group. But you can spell knotty either way.
Q
Senator Scott, would you say that this is an attempt,
this message that the President is sending up, or will be a bad
report card on Congress?
SENATOR SCOTT: I wouldn't say that. I think it would
be a recognition of his responsibility as the Chief Executive
to call to the attention of the Congress and, of course, the
Nation, the fact that at his end of the Avenue, he is ready for
the legislation and has been in many cases for months.
He is curious -- I won't add any color to that -- that
so little has evolved. Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Q What is that?
SENATOR SCOTT: The mountain has labored and given
forth a mouse.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: If I might add, Hugh, I haven't
seen the message. But as Senator Scott has indicated, the
President sent up 40 messages. All or most of them are in bill
form and the effect is that there is a specific recommendation
to the Congress for legislative action.
When you add up what has been sent up and you
look at what has been accomplished, you can't help but come
to the conclusion that there has been some foot-dragging, either
deliberate or otherwise. And the American people can't help
but come to the conclusion that the Administration has been
progressive in its advocacy of good programs aimed at reforming
the fabric of the American political system with new Federalism,
and that the Congress has been dilatory in its action on
this legislative program.
Let me just point out one thing. I said it last
week and there has been no change. The President has had one
appropriations bill for the current fiscal year on his desk
for signature. I think this is the poorest record of the
consideration of appropriation bills in the history of the
relationship between the Executive and the Congress.
Something has to be done affirmatively and the
President is going to remind the Congress that he has sent
up these messages and he hopes that for the benefit of the
country some affirmative action will be taken.
MORE
(OVER)
- 6 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I would like to add there that the
Democratic control of Congress has been relaxed in action and
rather laxative in political reaction.
Q When do you think the rest of the appropriations
bills will be down?
SENATOR SCOTT: Whenever Congress wakes up.
Q Is this the first time that a President has
ever sent such a message to Congress?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President regards it as virtually
unprecedented in that it is sort of a reminder message
rather than a message containing necessarily new material.
Q Senator, I find it strange that the Republican
Leadership would not discuss this morning Judge Haynsworth's
status. Could you tell us why that wasn't discussed?
SENATOR SCOTT: It is a question better addressed to
the President, I think. But I assume that he feels that he
has made his position clear and, therefore, there is no need
for further discussion.
Q
How about a report to him on a head-count
in the Senate? Wouldn't that be pertinent?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think you would have to ask the
Party Whips for that. I am not making a count.
Q
The President didn't want to know this?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President has his own means
of communicating with the Congress on these matters. If he
has been queried on that, I am sure he has an answer. But he
hasn't inquired of me.
Q What is your feeling today, Senator, on the
Haynsworth appointment?
SENATOR SCOTT: I have indicated that I think it will
be reported out of Committee and that he will be confirmed.
MORE
- 7 -
Q
Congressman Ford, you had said that there
has been some foot-dragging, you felt, and that the Congress
has been dilatory. Have you been discussing this problem
with Speaker McCormack regularly?
Have you been asking him to move faster and what
has his answer been?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: of course, the Speaker knows
the number of messages that have been sent up. The Democratic
chairmen of the respective committees are familiar with bills
that have been introduced and are before their various committees.
They are alert to the problem, but when we look
at the result, we are disappointed. I hope and trust that before
we adjourn the major part of this legislative program, the
reform package of the President, will be approved.
All we can say is that when you look at what has
been sent and what has been produced, there isn't a great
deal of productive results so far.
This is particularly true in draft reform,
particularly true in the area of welfare reform, particularly
true in postal reform, particularly true in crime reform.
You go right down the list and the major reform measures
recommended by the President are still in limbo in the
Congress.
Something ought to be done about it.
Q
Is there a welfare bill operating?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The welfare bill went up last
week.
Q
How can you expect Congress to act?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: They have known that it was
on the agenda. The bill went up last week and hearings
ought to be held, scheduled, and action taken.
O
Some of these items have to start in Ways
and Means. Have they been dilatory and foot-dragging in welfare,
Social Security?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: They have not acted on welfare.
They have not acted on Social Security.
O
They have been busy, though.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I will just let the record speak
for itself.
O
I gather this is to be a written message
that is going to be released on Sunday and sent to the Hill
on Monday.
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes.
MORE
- 8 -
Q
Did the President indicate whether he had
given any consideration to making this a non-written or
televised or other kind of report?
SENATOR SCOTT: He made no reference to that.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I understand it, it is a
regularly-submitted message to the Congress on Monday.
I Did the President make any reference to
his trade policy in his talks with you or say anything about
his trade bill?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Not this morning.
Q
On television, Senator Scott, on Sunday you
said,if I am not mistaken, that you sensed movement in Vietnam
on the political or the diplomatic or military fronts.
Today, you were merely suggesting that if the
country moots its criticism for a period of 60 to 90 days
there will be a greater chance of movement.
Are you pulling back slightly from your statement
of Sunday? Do you see movement now or only the hope of
movement?
SENATOR SCOTT: I see both. I have the hope of
movement.
I have the feeling that there will be movement.
And I have the caution that I ought not to say any more than
that.
Q
Senator, did the comments by General Wheeler
come up this morning?
SENATOR SCOTT: No.
Q
Thinking specifically, he said that the
pace of Vietnamization cannot be pushed too far and that
American troops are likely to have to remain in Vietnam for
some time to come.
Do you believe that this is the Administration's
position?
SENATOR SCOTT: I have no way of knowing whether
that is the Administration's position or not.
The Secretary of Defense has made it clear many
times that the Administration is committed to Vietnamization
of the war and the inference is clear that that should
occur just as quickly as they are able to take on more and
more responsibility.
And President Thieu has recently made the same
point, that they are anxious to do SO.
MORE
- 9 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would add that the Administration's
view is that the whole matter could be solved more quickly
if Hanoi would agree to peace in Paris.
That is the way to end it, without having to go
through this process of withdrawing American troops from
Vietnam, as the South Vietnamese take over the greater responsi-
bility.
Paris is where Hanoi can end the war most quickly,
from our point of view, and unfortunately, they have not had
any change of attitude since the first day.
Q
I was trying to check on whether the General's
statement today reflected a new estimate by the Administration
of the pace of this program.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion of that.
Q
It is a small, but maybe an important point,
Senator. With respect, I don't think you directly answered Mr. Semple's
question earlier, what is your position today about whether
there is movement or a hope of movement toward reaching
peace
in Vietnam.
Are you rolling back from your position of Sunday,
or do you stand by what you said Sunday? Is there any
change in your attitude?
SENATOR SCOTT: There has been no change in my
attitude nor has there been any change in my information.
What I said Sunday would still stand. I said
perhaps I should add the addendum of caution because I
don't want to indicate that more than I do, I know.
There is one temptation I would like to avoid.
I am not always successful.
Q You said yesterday that the reaction at the
White House to your hope for a breakthrough was not unfavorable.
Could you tell us if the President agrees with your
hope for a breakthrough?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President found no fault with
the program on which I spoke and indicated that he thought
it was a good program and that it properly presented good
answers to the questions and stressed the fact that no one
could be more for peace than he is.
Therefore, he could hardly be changed from pursuing
a path of peace.
That is an explanation of some statements
that he said he would ignore suggestions of the 15th of
October. He made it clear that all he said was that he
couldn't be affected by them because he couldn't be more
for peace. But these demonstrators will also be for peace
and therefore, perhaps we are all talking about the same
thing in that regard.
MORE
- 10 -
Q
Did he see the program?
SENATOR SCOTT: You never know. A number of
the White House Aides saw it and they called up and said the
President liked it.
And then the President says, "I liked the program."
Suppose you ask him whether he saw it. I didn't want to ask
him. He just said he likes the program. I hope he saw it.
Q
Senator, how long has this message of next
Monday been contemplated?
SENATOR SCOTT: I first heard of it last night
when I was told that the matter might be brought up today.
That is all I was told, a one-sentence notice, and then it
was discussed today. I didn't know anything until today
about it beyond that.
Q
A question for Mr. Ziegler:
You mentioned it going up to Congress on Monday.
Will it be for release for publication on Sunday?
MR. ZIEGLER: Yes, it will be.
Q 6:30 ?
MR. ZIEGLER: Yes.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 11:12 A.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 9, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
WITH
CONGRESSMAN GERALD FORD
AND
METROPOLITAN POLICE CHIEF JERRY V. WILSON
10:55 A.M. EDT
MR. ZIEGLER: As you know, there was a meeting with
bipartisan leaders here this morning in the Cabinet Room.
There was a group of the press who attended that meeting and
I think they may have filled some of you in. There will be a
transcript of that meeting made available in the next hour or
so. For those of you who could not make it in this morning at
8:30, Congressman Ford and the Chief are here to discuss the
meeting with you and to take any questions that you may have.
Congressman Ford, would you like to start?
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: The purpose of the meeting
was to emphasize the crime crisis that exists in the District of
Columbia and to emphasize and re-emphasize the urgency that
the President has for whatever action can be taken by the
Congress to help solve the problem.
The President has sent to the Congress, as all of you
know, a pretty comprehensive anti-crime package for the Dis-
trict of Columbia, including the obvi ous weed for more per-
sonnel as far as the Department is concerned, courts and
prosecutors, and in addition, some substantive legislation to
make it harder on the criminal element in the District of
Columbia.
I think the meeting with the members of the Committee
on Appropriations, with the Committee on the Judiciary, on
the Legislative Committee on the District of Columbia, indicates
that as far as the President is concerned, he wants action, and
I am glad to report, at least my observation was, that there
was unanimity on both sides of the aisle on all committees
that action would be forthcoming for additional dollars and
for the necessary legislation in the area of preventive deten-
tion, in the area of court reorganization, and any of the other
specifics that the President has recommended.
I think the meeting ended up on a high level of
cooperation between the Executive Branch and the Legislative
Branch.
MR. ZIEGLER: Chief, would you like to comment?
CHIEF WILSON: As Congressman Ford said, the meeting
was very productive. It seems to me one of the most positive
meetings I have been in in a long time. We discussed what is
the actual crisis in crime in the District of Columbia at this
time and the need for immediate action before Congress adjourns,
on the preventive detention proposals, on the appropriations
MORE
- 2 -
#333
proposals, which would provide for treatment of narcotic
addicts and for involuntary hospitalization of addicts, and
the court reorganization bill, the general legislative and
appropriations package which is not to treat the Police De-
partment, which has historically been treated well by Congress,
but the whole justice problem of the District of Columbia, to
meet the problems we face, which are acute problems.
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: I think Bill Natcher indi-
cated that in the 15 years he has been on the Appropriations
Subcommittee for the District of Columbia -- I don't know how
many years he has been chairman, a good many -- this was the
second meeting in 15 years where a President of the United
States had met with the responsible people on the various com-
mittees.
I can't quote precisely what Bill Natcher said,
but he certainly indicated that the President's affirmative
interest was best indicated by this meeting this morning and
that he thought it would be a very productive meeting in
getting both money and substantive legislation to meet the
problem.
Q Did Senator Tydings have anything constructive
or definitive to say?
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: Yes, he did. I unfortunately
missed the first 15 or 20 minutes of the meeting, but while
I was there, there was nothing but, I would say, constructive
discussion on legislation and on other ideas that he mentioned.
I guess we can talk about the need and necessity for, as he
expressed it, a new jail here, which I think was agreed had
to be constructed. The Chief can give you more detail on why,
but this was a suggestion that Senator Tydings made, and I
think there was agreement that this ought to be high on the
priority list.
CHIEF WILSON: And he also addressed the problem of
the need for hospitalization of narcotics addicts and other
treatment of addicts, which is one of our most pressing prob-
lems in the District at this time.
2
Congressman, do you think most of the President's
crime package will get through the House this session?
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: I am always an optimist, and
I think the fact that this meeting was held and there was
such a high degree of unanimity expressed by the leaders, I
think we can. I certainly don't start out with the assumption
that it will not. I think it is of such urgency that the Con-
gress, the House as well as the Senate, ought to act affirma-
tively.
Q
But you will concede it has moved pretty slowly
so far?
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: I agree. I am not condemning
anybody or excusing anybody, but we are going to be here until
probably Christmas Eve and I think there is ample time to have
it done. Wouldn't you be glad to have us here that long?
MORE
- 3 -
#333
Q
Did Mr. Natcher indicate the last time such
a meeting was held?
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: I think he indicated sometime
early in the administration of John F. Kennedy a similar meet-
ing was held.
2
Since the President made such an issue of crime
in Washington during the campaign, did he express any kind
of frustration or discouragement at the fact that the crime
rate is still going up here?
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: I would not say it was frus-
tration. I think the fact that the meeting was called indi-
cates his strong feeling that something affirmative has to
be done. You can't look at those crime statistics without
feeling some disappointment. So if we are going to get action,
obviously a package like the President has recommended is
what has to be approved by the Congress.
Q
Chief, is there anything that could be done
administratively to deal with the crime problem without having
to wait for Congress?
CHIEF WILSON: Not really, beyond what has been
done, which is adding overtime for police officers, which
really does not effectively deal with the problem of a situa-
tion where a hold-up man who is arrested must be released by
the courts before trial, where there is no real emphasis
placed on narcotic addiction treatment, which cannot be done
without appropriations.
No. As a matter of fact, the only thing that could
be done was what the Mayor did on August 28th, which was beef
up police patrols, which was all he could realistically do.
Q What is your projection of how much crime
would decrease if Congress passed these proposals?
CHIEF WILSON: I am not a soothsayer. I think we
could get realistic drops in armed robberies. I think they
could be reduced by one-half if pre-trial detention and
narcotic addiction treatment were put into effect immediately.
I say that simply because armed robberies have doubled in the
last few months largely as a result of the Court of Appeals
rapping the Court of General Sessions for holding for bail
persons charged with armed robbery.
Beyond that, I don't think I could realistically
say that a certain percentage reduction would occur. Several
of the proposals are long-range. I have to recognize it is
going to take one or two years to take effect. Even a new
jail, which is badly needed, is going to take several years
to construct.
As I pointed out this morning, the things that
would have an immediate effect, enactment of preventive deten-
tion, involuntary hospitalization of narcotics addicts, and
the provision of Methadone maintenance. The other provisions
would take a little longer.
MORE
- 4 -
#333
Q
Are the facilities available for preventive
detention without the new jail?
CHIEF WILSON: This is one of the new problems.
The facilities are going to be crowded with preventive detene
tion, but I think there are relatively a small number of
hard-core criminals who, if gotten off the street, would
help us a great deal in armed robberies.
Q
Are you talking about a replacement for D.C.
Jail or Lorton?
CHIEF WILSON: D.C.
Q
You placed stress on two things, your pre-
trial detention, your inability to do that now, and the
problem of concurrent sentences. I was not sure whether
these things require constitutional changes or administrative
and statutory changes.
CHIEF WILSON: Both of those require statutory changes.
Neither, so far as I am aware -- and I am not a constitutional
lawyer, SO I speak without portfolio -- but neither would
require constitutional changes. The position of the Admin-
istration is that both of these changes could be accomplished
by legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: Chief, what percentage of the
armed robberies in the last several months have been under-
taken or committed by repeaters?
CHIEF WILSON: We don't have real, hard-core infor-
mation on this, Mr. Congressman, but we have found, for
example, in a survey we ran last year, that 35 percent of
the individuals released on pre-trial detention commit
other armed robberies while they are out on pre-trial deten-
tion, and we have no indication that this has improved. It
looks as if it is worse.
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: If you had preventive deten-
tion, at least 35 percent, as a good figure, would drop in
armed robberies?
CHIEF WILSON: I would estimate a higher rate of
drop than that.
Q
If you had pre-trial detention without at the
same time having court reorganization going hand in hand,
wouldn't this lengthen the time these people have to stay in?
Wouldn't the backlog be so great you would be overcrowded?
CHIEF WILSON: The pre-trial detention proposes
they can be held for 60 days, provided the case is not being
continued at their own request. One of the problems is,
according to the lawyers, that when the individual is not in
jail awaiting trial, when he is out there is no incentive on
behalf of the defense to go to trial, so the defense attorney
uses the classic way of fighting the trial, and that is to
delay. Any criminal lawyer will tell you that, a defense or
prosecutor will tell you that: The classic way of defending
oneself is to delay it until the witnesses have forgotten, or
the facts are forgotten or the witnesses have moved away. Pre-
trial detention provides a good way to come to early trial.
MORE
- 5 -
#333
Q
Do you think detention of addicts would help
in other cities?
CHIEF WILSON: I would hesitate to put myself in
the position of analyzing other cities' problems because I
am not familiar with them. I would expect that certainly
treatment of addicts would help. I am not certain other
cities have the problem we have in terms of pre-trial detention
because although the money bail system which was in effect in
the system, and which is in effect in most cities, does not
provide automatic pre-trial detention.
Studies show that the judges in assessing the bail
do use the system for pre-trial detention. For example, the
Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia found that
when an individual came before the court who had been charged
with a crime while out on bail, he received an average of
100 percent higher bond than on the first offense. So the
indication is that other cities probably don't have as acute
a problem as we have.
Q
Mr. Ford, is there agreement generally among
lawyers and men in the Congress that there is no constitutional
issue in this pre-trial detention problem and also the problem
of concurrent sentencing?
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: I have not made a survey of
the Congress and the lawyers. I believe however -- this is
just a personal assessment from listening and talking with
people in the Congress who are lawyers -- I think the majority
would agree that preventive detention is constitutional under
the safeguards that are included in the President's recommen-
dation.
It is not just automatic. I mean, the judge has
some leeway. I think as long as the court has that leeway,
most Members of the Congress who are lawyers would argue that
it was constitutional.
Q
Mr. Ford, do you have any guidance, unofficial
or not, from the House Judiciary Committee as to their feeling
on this?
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: Mr. McCulloch was there at
the meeting. Mr. Celler was not. I have not talked to Mr.
Celler about it. But the impression I got from Bill McCulloch
this morning when he was asked to make some comments was that
he was for the package. We did not go down the list, but I
got the impression that he felt the whole package deserved
immediate attention and approval by the Congress.
Q I was wondering, from an overall point, the
House Judiciary Committee, from Congressman Celler and Con-
gressman McCulloch and the others, since this is so basic.
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: I have not talked to others
on it. I have not polled the Committee on the Judiciary, but
my general impression would be that the committee would act
affirmatively.
Q Chief, what figures do you have relating drugs
to robberies and other crimes?
MORE
- 6 -
#333
CHIEF WILSON: We have very sparse statistics on
the relationship of addiction to crime, but our surveys
which have been run in D. C. Jail and which we have been
running of persons arrested indicates that upwards of 50
percent of persons committing robberies are addicts, which
is a change. Addicts heretofore were aimed at property-type
crimes, housebreaking and petty larceny, and the indications
I(
now are that 50 percent of all of our crimes are committed
by addicts.
I might emphasize on pre-trial detention that this
is aimed at a few. This is not flat pre-trial detention of
everyone arrested. This morning we discussed this and there
are really very few people who have to be held in order to
have a very immediate effect on crime.
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: May I answer affirmatively
a question that was asked? Bill McCulloch, myself, all mem-
bers of the Minority, and a substantial number of the members
on the Majority side, I am told, introduced the preventive
detention proposition. So I think on the basis of that, there
is substantial support in the committee for the legislation.
MR. ZIEGLER: Thank you very much.
END
(AT 11:10 A.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 14, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:42 A.M. EDT
SENATOR SCOTT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
This morning the President and the Leadership
discussed several things: The Haynsworth nomination, the economic
questions, the October 15 moratorium, and others.
On the matter of the nomination of Judge Haynsworth,
the President expressed himself as firmly and unequivocally
determined to go forward with the nomination.
The President also has released a letter, which
Representative Ford will refer to, having to do with H.R. 13000,
the Postal Pay Bill.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Thank you, Hugh.
We also discussed, in addition to the letter that
I will summarize for you, the impact that some of us found
around the country over the weekend on the President's message,
which came to the House and Senate yesterday.
I was in Texas, Nevada, and Michigan over the weekend.
I can say that universally the public has responded to the
program the President has submitted. I think you will find
a great surge of public opinion insisting that the Congress
respond to the President's overall legislative package.
And I, for one, just as the President expressed it,
hope and trust that this Congress will act affirmatively on
this program. I don't think we ought to get into nitpicking
about who is at fault, if there is any blame. All of us
can be the beneficiaries of affirmative action. I think the
public is going to insist upon it.
One of the items that the House today is considering
involves H. R. 13000. It is a bill that, if in its present form
is passed, will add approximately $4.3 billion in Federal
expenditures. Secondly, if it is approved by the Congress
in its present form, it will undoubtedly undermine any
opportunity for bona fide, legitimate Post Office reform
legislation.
Because of its inflationary impact, and for the
other reasons that I previously mentioned, this bill, if it
comes to the President's desk in its present form, will be
unacceptable to the President of the United States.
MORE
- 2 -
I might add one paragraph, quoting from the
President's letter. "The increase which the Post Office
Department alone must absorb, for example, would require
cutbacks in a variety of services. They would include
the elimination of Saturday deliveries and window service
for rural, city and suburban areas alike."
If this legislation is enacted over the President's
veto, inevitably you are going to have just further deterioration
of Post Office Department service.
And I, therefore, hope and trust that the House
uses some good sense today and takes another look at this
kind of legislation.
I can add, as a supplement, that the President
has a group in the Executive Branch of the Government that
is working on pay comparability and pay problems for people
in the Executive Branch of the Government. But their recommenda-
tions certainly cannot follow the pattern of H. R. 13000.
SENATOR SCOTT: One last thing. Today is President
Eisenhower's birthday. We have been trying to get the
Eisenhower Dollar Legislation adopted by today in the Senate.
Senator Kennedy was in charge yesterday. There has been
some colloquy and it is our hope that that bill can be
disposed of today.
Q
Senator Scott, did you at any time write to
the President asking him not to make the Haynsworth appointment?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, sir, I did not.
Q
Senator, what did you talk about in regard to the
moratorium? What was your conclusion?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, we, first of all, agreed that
there is no argument whatever in the fact that everyone
concerned, from the President down to every last American,
has the same objective: We are all for achieving peace.
Every President in recent years has known war.
And the President shares the anquish of spirit, which will be
exhibited tomorrow in memory of those who have fallen, and
in concern over the future course of America.
But the President is firmly on his course for peace.
His plan is a plan in progress. It is a plan which is the only
one in my judgment which offers an opportunity to achieve that
for which people will be demonstrating; that is, there is
only one negotiator at the top and if anyone has a better
plan than the President, obviously, everyone wants to hear it.
But no matter whose plan is offered, it has to be
implemented by the President. And he believes that his plan
is the working one; that it will work; that we will get out of
this war; and that we will do it as expeditiously as the sum
total of events will permit.
MORE
- 3 -
Ω
Senator, do you find that it is the President's
view that the demonstration such as tomorrow will delay
the possibility of negotiating a settlement or hinder the
efforts to get a negotiated settlement?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President has made no such
statement, nor do I think that peaceful demonstrations would
impede or delay a settlement. I think that violence, those
people who want peace so much that they would fight everybody
in sight to get it, would probably be a counter-productive
effort.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: If I might add a comment. I
think it is well to point out that President Eisenhower, whose
birthday it is today, ended the war in Korea and the plan
that President Nixon has will end the war in Vietnam. But
there can only be one quarterback.
The American people selected President Nixon as
the quarterback for at least this four-year period.
I might use this analogy. This is the football
season. Joe Namath is a great quarterback. The New York
Jets seem to be doing pretty well with one quarterback. If
they had 11 Joe Namaths on the field, I don't think the
New York Jets would win very many football games.
I happen to believe that we have a good quarterback.
He has a good plan. I think it will be successful and will
get peace in Vietnam.
Q
What is your position on the all-night
marathon that some of the Democrats want in the House?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As far as I am concerned, if
they want to go on all night, I am not going to object to it
personally. I think there may be some others who might do
otherwise. But if they wish to proceed that way, and as
long as they present reasonable arguments for the continuation,
fine.
They are going to take an awful lot of time to come
up with some ideas that I think they might more succinctly
submit through other channels.
SENATOR SCOTT: There might be occasion, if Members
of Congress want to have night sessions, to consider such
matters as obscenity, pornography, crime in the District
of Columbia, bail reform, and all the crime bills.
I haven't heard anybody offer to work overtime
on any of the pending legislation of that kind.
Q Senator, yesterday in the Senate, if I am
not mistaken, you asked those who were introducing resolutions
opposed to the President's course to ask themselves the
question which side are they on. What did you mean by that?
MORE
- 4 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I didn't direct it to the people
introducing resolutions. I said to all those people who
share a common concern for peace, all the people who demonstrate,
all the people who will gather on October 15, ought to ask
themselves what side are they on, because it seems to me that
if Americans will examine the fact that they have only one
negotiator, not that they should agree with everything that
he says or does, but that they should give him the fullest
opportunity to bring about a peace.
I think it is a proper inquiry.
Q
Is the implication of that question that these
people are not on the President's side, they are on the side
of Hanoi?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, the implication is not that.
The implication is not that they are the enemy.
The implication is that the enemy cites statements
made by Americans and that, therefore, Americans need to be
responsive in everything they say so as not to unwillingly
or unintentionally give information to Hanoi which can be
used as an argument that America is divided and therefore they
don't have anything to talk to us about.
Q
Senator, Scott, when the Haynsworth nomination
reaches the Senate Floor, will you vote for it or against it?
SENATOR SCOTT: I will be glad to tell you at that
time. I expect the nomination to be approved.
Q
You said that economic questions were discussed
in the leadership meeting. Could you elaborate on that?
Is the President satisfied that his policies are working at
this point?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President is satisfied that his
policies are working. He is satisfied that inflation can be
brought under control, that the policies can be and are
being made effective, and that this can be done and it is
possible and feasible at the same time to hold down the
level of unemployment; that they are in a period where
certain Administration actions have to be taken.
From there, we may well move to a period where some
of these things can be lightened or lessened in their effect.
But, first, we must go through a period of some time in order
to hold the inflationary monster back and he believes that
that is being achieved. It is now in process.
Q
Senator, I am concerned about the apparent
contradictions between two things you said on this
moratorium. You said you saw no objection to a peaceful
demonstration by Americans.
SENATOR SCOTT: I am glad there are only two.
Q
Yet, you also seemed to me to be saying that
this kind of thing gives aid and comfort to the enemy in
terms of making the enemy think that this country is divided
and not following the President. How can you support the
peaceful demonstration and also say the other?
MORE
- 5 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I can support a peaceful demonstration
and urge, one, that it be peaceful; urge, two, that it
be constructive; urge, three, that it be responsive; urge,
four, that those who do it be very careful that in so doing
they are giving aid and comfort to the country's negotiators
and not aid and comfort to anyone else. I think it is a
proper request.
Q Do you think this demonstration tomorrow meets
your criteria as a legitimate demonstration?
SENATOR SCOTT: I have no way of knowing what tomorrow
will bring forth. That is one of the excitements of my job and
one of the burdens of it.
I would assume the way it is being organized that
there is every honest intention for it to be a peaceful
demonstration on the part of the organizers.
I am equally certain that there are disruptive
forces in America who will try to exploit it. I hope
they are not successful.
Q
Senator, I am a little puzzled by your decision
not to let us know how you are going to vote on the
Haynsworth thing at this time. Does that indicate that you
want to still hear more facts, that you are not convinced that
he is as clean ---
SENATOR SCOTT: It simply indicates that, as a
Senator, I have long refused to indicate my vote on matters
of the highest interest. We will have a much greater amount
of publicity if I keep you guessing.
Q Senator, is there any chance that that vote
might not come before the end of this session?
SENATOR SCOTT: I have not heard that seriously
postulated. I think it is likely to come well before the
end of the session.
Q
Senator, as the Republican Leadership in the
Senate, since you don't want to make your plans public on
Judge Haynsworth, can you tell us whether or not you have
indicated to the other Republican Senators what your plans
are?
MORE
- 6 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I have not indicated to other
Republican Senators what may happen with their votes or with
mine other than to attempt to secure an estimate on how the
votes are going.
Some are for it, some are against it, and some are
uncommitted. I am not prepared to tell you what the count is,
because it is incomplete. Until I have that, I am not
prepared to say.
Q
Have you told the President how you will vote?
SENATOR SCOTT: I have discussed the matter with
the President. Beyond that, I, again, am not prepared to say.
Q
Do you anticipate the President's message this
week on inflation will contain any new initiatives or rather
would be a re-statement on what he has done so far and how it
is working?
SENATOR SCOTT: Which message?
Q
The White House said yesterday the President
will have a message on inflation.
SENATOR SCOTT: I think Jerry could answer that
better.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It is my understanding that there
will not be a message, as such. But there will be a full and
complete discussion at the White House with the individuals in
the Congress who have charge of legislation involving the
anti-inflation fight.
This will come sometime this week. It will be
a resume of where we are, what we have to do, and an indication
of the fact that we have turned the corner in the battle against
inflation by the responsible fiscal and monetary policies of
this Administration.
But as far as I know, it will not be a message, as
such.
MR. ZIEGLER: The President didn't cover this in specific
terms this morning in the general discussion of inflation.
But there is a plan for the President to possibly have an
address on inflation this week.
Q
Senator, will the Haynsworth nomination be
hurt in the Senate by Sunday's less than unaminous
endorsement of him by the ABA's committee in New York?
SENATOR SCOTT: Will it be hurt?
Q
Will it be hurt?
SENATOR SCOTT: The Senate is the forum for debate.
Undoubtedly, people will raise that point and others will
argue that the American Bar Association has reaffirmed its
earlier position.
MORE
- 7 -
I can't anticipate what Senators will say. I
can only tell you what the President's position is, and that
is firmly and unequivocably in support of the nomination,
and that I expect it to be confirmed.
Q Has the President reviewed the factual situation,
or the charges, back and forth, or did somebody on the staff
review it with the leaders?
SENATOR SCOTT: Mr. Mollenhoff made a presentation
this morning and there was general discussion.
Q
Do you know, and if you do, will you tell us
who asked the Bar Association to take another look at
Judge Haynsworth?
SENATOR SCOTT: I can clarify one thing: I am
not the person who did.
The answer is I have heard only by rumor who
made the request, and I am not really qualified to simply
give you the benefit of the rumor.
I think I know. But I know it was not myself. I
saw Mr. Segal on the day in question and spoke to him
regarding two Pennsylvania Judgeships. I spoke rather
urgently. I am sorry to say he doesn't agree with me.
Q Congressman Ford, I think you said that the
President would indicate that we have turned the corner
on inflation.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: That is correct.
Q
Is that his view or is it yours?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: That is the President's view;
that the policies that we have been following under this
Administration have taken the first big step in turning the
corner on inflation.
I think you will find, not tomorrow, maybe not for
a month or two, some very substantive benefits from this
effective battle against inflation.
We are optimistic that we can look forward in
the near future to effects that will be helpful as far as the
consumer is concerned without any rise of any significance in
unemployment.
Q
Congressman, was it your intention to describe
the President as the Joe Namath of American politics?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No. I was using only that
as an illustration. I could pick any one of other first-
class quarterbacks in both pro football and in college football.
Archie Manning down in Mississippi is a pretty good
one. But I don't think Archie Manning would win many football
games if he was out there all by himself.
MORE
- 8 -
I think you have to have one quarterback. We have
a good one. I think he is going to win this battle against
Hanoi, and achieve and be successful in accomplishing
peace in America.
Q
Congressman, the coach sends in a player
now and then, doesn't he?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: He does. But some of these people
who are making suggestions, I don't think, would qualify
as very high-class coaches.
So I think we ought to stick with a quarterback
who is making some successful accomplishments, a 20-percent
reduction in the combat forces of the U.S. military
personnel in Vietnam; a 12-percent reduction in overall
U.S. military personnel in Vietnam. That is making head-
way in achieving peace and disengaging the United States.
You know, most of these grandstand quarterbacks
never play a ball game. But they have got lots of advice.
They wouldn't know how to play the ball game if they were
on the field.
The American people selected one quarterback. He is
doing a good job. I just don't think we ought to have a whole
football field of quarterbacks out there in this crucial battle
that involves the lives and future of a good many young
Americans.
SENATOR SCOTT: I am still going to keep my lights
on tomorrow.I may be the only person in the whole country, but
I am doing it.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I am joining you.
Q
Congressman Ford, in addition to criticizing
the committee-passed bill on postal matters, what positive
suggestions do you have for changing it?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think we will rely on two
things:
As I said, the President has a committee now working
on comparability and other pay problems in the Federal
Civil Service and postal service.
This group, we hope, will come up with some
constructive programs to make sure that Federal employees are
adequately compensated, have adequate opportunities for
promotion, et cetera.
Secondly, if we did get the President's postal
reform legislation through the Congress, it means that about
850,000 postal employees will have a better opportunity for
better working conditions, better pay, better incentives,
et cetera.
But the fact that the Congress apparently at this
moment is sitting on and not moving ahead with the
President's postal reform legislation is harmful to the best
interests of the 850,000-some postal employees in
the Federal service.
MORE
- 9 -
Q
Has that been reported out of
committee, just for background?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No. Last week, they had a crucial
vote whether to take up the President's postal reform
legislation, or whether to take Chairman Dulski's bill.
And on a 13-to-13 vote, they agreed to put in the background
temporarily the President's postal reform bill and to
consider the Dulski bill. But I would like to make this
observation:
Q
That is the one you are aiming at, the Dulski
bill?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Let me give you a little fill on
what I think is going to be the progress of this.
I suspect now the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service will report out the Dulski bill, which is not
really meaningful postal reform.
I presume they will get a rule. Then the crucial
test will come in the House of Representatives. If we are
unable to substitute the President's postal reform bill,
which has some real reform in it, then the committee
as
a
whole
will
offer
a motion to recommit and get a role
call so the people will have a chance to know whether you are
going to have this superficial reform or meaningful reform.
I think the public will insist in the final
analysis on meaningful reform.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 11:05 A.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 28, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY George
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
the Hostmann Bill
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 11:09 A.M. EST
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Good morning.
This morning we talked about several matters, the
first of which I will discuss. I will open it up by
indicating that the President is sending to the Vice President
and to the Congressional Leaders a letter which will be
released shortly pointing out the critical nature of the
fiscal crisis that we face, primarily because of the lack
of action in the Congress on appropriation bills on the
one hand, and the action of the Congress in other instances
increasing authorization or expenditures.
The letter to the Vice President and others in the
Congress will point out that as of now the President has only
two of the appropriation bills out of the 13 before him; one
he has signed and one undoubtedly, he will sign sometime this
week.
In the House of Representatives we have passed
only five out of 13 appropriation bills. I cannot relate
the situation in the Senate, but the net result is the
action on the part of the Congress in relationship to the
appropriation bills is very, very poor, probably the worst
in the history of the Congress.
In addition, as I indicated, the Congress, after
setting an expenditure ceiling of $192.9 billion for the
current fiscal year has now, on more than a number of occasions,
by legislative actions, either authorizations or approprations,
breached that ceiling.
The consequences here, I think you can summarize
this way: This is irresponsible fiscal management on the
part of the Congress itself.
Now the problem is complicated by one other situation.
The President, the Executive Branch of the Government, must
submit to the Congress in early January the budget for the
next fiscal year, fiscal year 1971. Of course that sizable
document which you have all seen cannot be put together at
the last minute.
With the lack of affirmative action on the part
of the Congress on fiscal 1970 budget matters, the Bureau
of the Budget is in a real bind on what they ought to plan
for, what they ought to suggest that the President recommend
for fiscal 1971.
MORE
- 2 -
The letter to the Vice President and others will
point out the critical nature of this situation and
the fiscal irresponsibility of the Congress in not acting
more affirmatively and more quickly.
Q
Will this letter be available today?
MR. ZIEGLER: It will be available in about an hour.
SENATOR SCOTT: The fiscal crisis which impends
is not only unprecedented but can be extremely detrimental
to the family budget as well as the national budget. We
are four months into the fiscal year and these continuing
resolutions in all but two of the 13 appropriations represent
a situation that has never occurred before in the history of
this country.
In other words, the budget figures are not available
and yet, by statute, the Administration must go in at
the beginning of the year with a budget not yet based on
information which the Congress has a duty to furnish and
which they have not furnished.
On another matter, Mrs. Knauer discussed with the
Leadership a consumer message which the President will send up
sometime within the next week, and that had a very enthusiastic
reception. It is a bold approach. It is extensive. It
breaks new ground. It involves not only the coordination of
some of the 900-odd existing activities, but will set up new
institutions to deal with consumer problems.
The emphasis will be on the protection of the health
of the American people. This will be an entirely new approach
to consumer related agencies and toward communicating directly
through Mrs. Knauer as a pipe line from the consumer to the
President.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was one other matter
discussed. Dr. Kissinger outlined for the Leadership the
situation in reference to the SALT talks.
The President and the Administration were pleased
that we have now made arrangements to meet in Helsinki. The
Government of the United States is better prepared to sit
down and negotiate with the Soviet Union in this very critical
matter.
The preparation has been going on for the last six
or more months and there is unanimity within the Executive
Branch of the Government on our position in the wide areas
that will be included in these talks.
The fact that the talks are limited to arms limitations
does not preclude, however, the need and necessity for broader
issues to be brought in as the talks progress.
Q
Mr. Ford, to what do you and Senator Scott
ascribe the reasons for this delay in the appropriations
action?
MORE
- 3 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Quite frankly, I wish I knew the
answer to that. All we know is that the Congress has not
acted affirmatively, affirmatively today, for example,
and certainly by the end of the month this Government could
be faced with a dire fiscal situation.
If the Congress takes some action that blows wide open
any fiscal responsibility, and there could be some contests
between the House and the Senate, it is possible -- I hope
it is not true -- that there could be no authority for
any branch of the Federal Government to pay its employees,
because the existing continuing resolution only goes until
October 31.
If there is a breakdown between the House and the
Senate on the one part, and any problem between the Congress
and the Executive Branch on the other, there could be no
authority for any payment for goods, services or employees
after October 31.
SENATOR SCOTT: Or salaries of Congressmen, for that
matter.
Q Would you propose that the House and Senate
meet around the clock in day and night sessions, at least
not have this Thursday-Tuesday absenteeism, to correct the
situation?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Let me say I wholeheartedly
agree with the observation you have made. I think the
Congress from now until we adjourn ought to be on a minimum
of five days a week and hopefully a six-day week, with longer
sessions each and every day.
I think this is needed and necessary and in the
public interest.
SENATOR SCOTT: I would like to explain some of your
question as to why we have held up. The Congress has not
passed a number of authorization bills and, therefore, the
Appropriations Committee cannot act on that particular matter,
like the independent offices, there are three authorization
bills not yet acted upon.
Q
On the SALT talks, what did you have in mind
when you spoke of extending it to other problems?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: In addition to the arms limitations
problems, there are a number of political issues involving
the relationship between the United States and the Soviet
Union. I don't think you can totally disassociate the two.
Although the specific purpose of the SALT talks is to try and
find a workable way to limit arms, the whole atmosphere
between the United States and the Soviet Union depends on a
number of other more or less political problems. I think
the progress in one area has to be related to the progress in
the other.
Q
Mr. Ford, did you talk about Vietnam this
morning?
MORE
- 4 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The President did in this context:
The President said that it would be unwise for any one
of us or the nation as a whole to speculate on what he was
going to say in his speech to the American people on November 3.
Q
Did he say what he was not going to say?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The President just urged us all
not to speculate on the content of that speech, except it would
be a broad and comprehensive review of our situation in Vietnam.
Q
Was he chastizing Senator Scott?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, I don't think he was chastizing
anybody. He was just telling us that the speech would be
significant, comprehensive, but urged us not to speculate on
the content.
SENATOR SCOTT: Senator Scott stands on his own
feet on these matters, and I think I have made my views clear.
I think all of you will be terribly interested in the November 3
speech. I imagine you will watch it. I have full confidence
that the American people will find it very reassuring. It will
not only be a comprehensive review of the whole policy in
Vietnam, as Congressman Ford has said, but will discuss "Where
do we go from here?" I have no area of disagreement with that.
Q
Congressman Ford, can you list for us some of
the spending increases which the Administration opposes and is
it your belief that the President will not spend this money;
that the Congress is just passing these increases, and the
President will put this money in escrow?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The one specific legislative
proposal that the President has indicated strong opposition
to is the $1.5 billion pay increase legislation which went
through the House, the $1.5 billion for this fiscal year, and
$4.5 billion for subsequent fiscal years. That is the one
where he has quite clearly indicated his opposition.
There is no other specific bill that the White House
has indicated its opposition to, as such. But there was a list
of measures that show the add-on of the Congress and authoriza-
tion and appropriations which I suspect would be made available
from the Bureau of the Budget, if all of you are interested.
Q
Congressman Ford, who is to blame for this so-
called fiscal irresponsibility on the part of Congress?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the Congress is in a very
paradoxical situation. They talk about a spending limitation
on the one hand, and then they succumb to the preasures of
various groups who want the Federal Government to spend
more than either former President Johnson or President
Nixon have advocated in a wide range of spending areas.
I think the Congress is unfortunately in the
position . -- and I regret it very much -- of talking about saving
on the one hand, and then spending on the other. Congress has
to realize that if we are going to get out of the fiscal mess
we are in, we have to be consistent and that means a spending
limitation.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Congressman Ford, did you, in this review
this morning, have any reason to believe, or was there any
mention that there will be a breakdown in the passage of
a continuing resolution going beyond the one that we have
now?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Well, it is very possible that
because of the conflict between the House and the Senate, the
potential conflict between the Executive Branch and the
Legislative Branch, that we may not have an extension of the
existing continuing resolution. This would have tragic
consequences.
Q
This is the crisis you speak of?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: That is correct.
Q
If there is a failure to pass the continuing
resolution and the Government is out of money ---
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The Government is not out of
money, it just cannot spend the money.
The point was made, and I think it is a very valid
one, that this long delay where we are four months in the
fiscal year with only two appropriations bills on the
President's deak, there is ample evidence that this delay,
this lack of action by the Congress, is adding to the cost
of Government.
It was estimated by one of the knowledgeable people
in the meeting this morning that this delay, this uncertainty
-- I say irresponsibility is adding about two percent a
year to the cost of Government. If you take a $200 billion
budget, two percent of that is $4 billion a year. That
certainly is something that we ought to find a better answer
to than just going through the motions like we are.
MORE
-6-
Q
Has the continuing resolution been introduced?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Yes. The House Committee on
Appropriations has recommended a continuing resolution which
is on the Floor of the House at Noon today and there will be
an effort made by some to add some $600 million to it which
will again in part blow the lid off of the spending limitation
which Congress has previously approved.
As I understand it, there is serious opposition in
the Senate to this kind of action by the House because if the
House does this and they force it through the Senate, it means
that the House has pre-empted the right of the Senate Committee
on Appropriations and the Senate itself to determine what the
spending should be in a very important area of our Federal
budget.
Q
Mr. Ford, you suggested a couple of weeks ago
that it is the Democrats who are dragging their feet. Do you
still feel that way?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Certainly in the enactment of
appropriation bills the record is crystal clear. This is not
exclusively the problem of the Appropriations Committee because
in many, many instances there is no affirmative action on
authorization bills.
Let me give you several examples: In the case of
Foreign Aid, the authorizing committee in the House has not
yet completed its mark-up on the Foreign Aid Bill, much less
action either in the House or Senate.
In the case of the Military Procurement Bill the
House and Senate Armed Services Committees are in conference
now. But you cannot bring out the appropriations bill until
there is some action on the authorization.
So you cannot point out the Committee on Appropriations.
I think the Congress as a whole is at fault and for that reason
I think we ought to move to a five day at the minimum and
possibly six days a week session.
Q
We have been told again and again that the
President thinks it is unwise for the press or the Congress
to speculate on his November 3rd speech. Has he explained why
he doesn't want the speculation? Does he feel it will raise
expectations to the point they cannot be satisfied? What harm
does it do to speculate, in the President's opinion?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it is more important to
get the facts and the program from the man who has the
responsibility for the implementation and execution of our
policy in Vietnam.
For that reason, I think he is cautioning us not to
speculate.
Q
What harm does it do?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Let me put it the other way: What
good does it do? I don't think it does any good because on
some occasions it might raise false hopes and on the other it
might mislead the enemy as to what the President might say.
MORE
-7-
Overall, I think it is better to wait until the
Commander in Chief makes this report to 200 million Americans.
Q
Would you say this is a breakdown in leadership
of the House Members on the Committees as well as the House
Majority?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the Congress. as a whole
must share the blame.
Q
Republicans, too?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Although we don't control the
mechanisms, because we are in the minority, I think all of
us, Democrats and Republicans, ought to put our noses to the
grindstone and get this legislative program, that recommended
by the President, to the desk of the President for his affirma-
tive action.
Q
Congressman Ford, did the time taken by the
Administration in revising the budget contribute at all to this
delay?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: To a very minor degree, and I
think the President, in his letter to the Vice President and to
the Leaders, indicates that if there is any blame on the part of
the White House, they are willing to accept it, but the time has
come now for joint action. It is the same attitude the President
took in his message to the Congress a week ago Monday where he
said, forget about who is to blame, let's get the job done.
Q
Are you saying in the SALT talks that the U. S.
will bring up political issues at the outset?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I understand it those talks
will be specifically limited to the disarmament problems. But
you cannot help but have these other political problems that
are involved between the United States and the Soviet Union
in the overall picture.
Q
Whose idea is this, though, Congressman? Is it
the President's idea to expand the SALT talks?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No. It is just that I think we have
to be mature enough to understand that all issues have to be
kept in proper perspective. The arms talks are limited to that
but there are other areas of disagreement that ought to be
continuously discussed between the Soviet Union and us.
Q
Does the President envision this type of
dialogue?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Yes, I think the President expects
to continue the dialogue with the Soviet Union as to their
involvement in Vietnam, as to their interest in the Middle East,
as to their interest in all other parts of the world.
Q
At Helsinki?
SENATOR SCOTT: Not necessarily there. This might
occur at other places.
MORE
-8-
I
Are you suggesting that progress towards the
arms limitations will depend on progress in other areas such as
the Middle East?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Not necessarily, but this dialogue
will go on at all times.
Q
There has been a great deal of caution on the
part of Secretary Rogers on his pronouncements on this, both
in New York when he met with Gromyko and since that, to take
extreme care about any speculation about a political negotiating
dialogue as they relate to the disarmament talks and his caution
there? As he g.ve it to us, and these were on-the-record state-
ments, was to the effect that any suggestion that we might enlarge
these things or might take on a political discussion would leave
both sides vulnerable to suspect the other of making a
propaganda machine of it.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I thought I was crystal clear in
saying that the talks at Helsinki would be on arms matters. But
on the whole spectrum of what we have, the Middle East and
Vietnam will continue to be on the agenda of both Governments.
Q
Did Judge Haynsworth's chances come up today and
if so, how do you reckon them?
SENATOR SCOTT: They were not discussed.
Now, on the arms limitations matter -- (Laughter.)
I think the President makes a very good point and that
is that this Administration is not beginning these talks from
a concrete, fixed, immovable position, but that there are a
number of basic positions which the Administration has, which
it has cleared with its allies and associaters with which the
Joint Chiefs of Staff are familiar, and therefore the possibility
of success which we urgently want is at least to a degree
helped by the fact that 90 percent of the time can be spent in
negotiating with the Russians rather than to lose so much time
as we have in past talks of this kind negotiating with ourselves.
Q
Senator Scott, you said that the delay in
Congressional action on the appropriations bills would affect
not only the Federal Budget, but the household budget. Could you
be a little more specific as to how this will happen?
SENATOR SCOTT: Certainly, because the delay for
example, on the extension of the surtax, the delay in the tax
relief reform bill, the delay involving a further loss to the
Government, the 2 percent variation in forecasts which Mr. Ford
mentioned, all of these things contribute to inflationary
pressures, all of these things make more difficult the holding
down of the cost of living and therefore, do have a direct impact
on the household budget.
Q
Senator Scott, have you told the President how
you are going to vote on the Haynsworth nomination?
SENATOR SCOTT: And as I said, they do have a direct
impact on the household budget. (Laughter.)
Q
Senator Scott, have you told the President how
you are going to vote on the Haynsworth matter?
SENATOR SCOTT: As I said, they do have a direct effect
on the household budget. (Laughter.)
END
(AT 11:34 A.M. EST)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DECEMBER 4, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
AT 10:25 A.M. EST.
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership meeting has just
concluded. It lasted an hour and a half. Senator Scott
and Congressman Ford are here to report on that meeting.
Congressman Ford.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The first item on the agenda was
a discussion by the President concerning the slow pace of
the Congress, particularly as it affected the appropriation
situation and the efforts of the Administration to prepare
their own budget submission for fiscal year 1971.
The President is also concerned about the lack of
action in certain areas such as crime, the narcotics
control proposals, the organized crime efforts, the D. C.
Crime Bill.
As he concluded, he made a very flat, categorical
statement that unless the appropriation bills are through
the Congress and unless there is more affirmative action
in other areas, he would call the Congress back to a special
session December 26.
SENATOR SCOTT: The situation on appropriations
is unparalled in American history. Five bills, particularly,
are not even in the conference stage -- Labor, HEW, Foreign Aid,
OEO and Defense. We appear to have about three weeks to go.
The President is very firm that action must be
taken this year on these measures, and as you have heard,
otherwise we are back in session December 26. Anybody who
wants to go to the Rose Bowl Game will have a day off. -
Unless the Congress acts on all appropriation bills and
also unless it shows its determination to begin work early
in January and immediately move on such important and critical
matters as the crime bill, as one illustration, we may also
have to do without the Lincoln's Birthday holiday and all
those refreshing and brilliant speeches we are accustomed
to making during that period. That means the other Party
will have to do without its Washington Birthday holiday,
I suppose.
Q
How many appropriation bills have been signed?
SENATOR SCOTT: Seven have been finished in the
Congress.
MORE
- 2 -
Q
Is this likely to be an effective way to get
the Congress cracking?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would say that it should
have a very beneficial impact. A good many Members of
Congress, I am sure, have made plans to be away during
the Christmas-New Year's Holiday period, but it is almost
unbelievable that at least the House of Representatives
is not utilizing all of the time between now, and we
will say December 23 or 24, to complete its action on a
number of these legislative proposals. For example, yesterday
and today and tomorrow we have no legislative business
scheduled in the House of Representatives.
I think it is a most unfortunate development
and in this particular case, I strongly criticize those,
that small handful of Majority Party Members in the House
Committee on Education and Labor, who arbitrarily, on their
own hand, thwarted the opportunity of the House to work
its will on the OEO bill.
Q
Is the President insisting that the House
act early on the OEO bill and not delay?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The President certainly wants
the authorization bill passed by the House so they can go to
conference with the Senate. I think it is just unforgivable
that we are not, today and tomorrow, finishing our action on
this bill, letting the House work its will.
Q
What is the Administration's position on the
OEO bill? Does the Administration still favor the
original bill or this new substitute bill, the Green bill,
or what is the President's policy?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the President's will
is still that he wants a straight two-year extension.
On the other hand, we in the House feel that there ought
to be an opportunity for the House to work its will. I don't
think the proposed substitute, in any sense, is a crippling
amendment to the operations of the Office of Economic
Opportunity.
My big complaint is that we are not being given
the opportunity to work our will, and if we are, I think
we will pass a bill that will not be in disfavor down
at the White House when they are through.
Q
Mr. Ford, is the President then pleased
with the delay on the OEO Bill?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No. I think the President
would be extremely happy to have us work our will on the
bill, although his position today is the same as it has
been for some time, that he wanted a straight extension for two
years.
Q
What is the word from the President on the
Gore amendment?
MORE
- 3 -
SENATOR SCOTT: First of all, I would like to say
that I am not critical of the way the Senate is moving
at the present time, because we are meeting at 10:00
every day. We expect to be in session Saturdays. We are
working later and we have the Public Works appropriation
bill this morning. While much remains to be done, and that
goes back quite awhile, I think that currently the Senate
is working very hard.
On the Gore amendment, the President indicated
that he fully understood the realities with which we were
confronted and Senator Griffin and I both pointed out,
I think to the satisfaction of the President, that yesterday
we had succeeded in bringing about a reduction of the Gore
bill from a $1000 exemption to $800 by virtue of the use of
the Percy amendment in that connection, and, therefore, we
felt that to some degree we had stemmad an inflationary
movement. But the effect of the Gore bill is undoubtedly
extremely inflationary, and it is hoped that in conference
some other outcome may prevail.
Q
Senator Scott, did you pursue with the
President the complaints you had yesterday of certain
Executive Branch people working at odd purposes with what
you were trying to do?
SENATOR SCOTT: I would not characterize it as a
complaint or pursuit of a complaint. I think sometimes in
the heat of a situation of that kind, we say things that
may be a little bit unconsidered- the Supreme Court uses
the phrase, "the unconsidered phrase." at times, but that
was not pursued in that sense.
What was done was to explain that we had fought
the good fight there, bearing in mind that the difficulties
of individual Senators with regard to the proposed increases
in the dependency allowances was considerable, and that each
Senator had his own problem. We think we were very lucky
not to lose more than eight or nine Republicans on the Gore
amendment.
I think it was occasioned by pursuing the Percy
amendment. My comment yesterday was really directed to
the fact that we need that much leeway up there in order
to sometimes introduce our own amendments as a substitute
for the other side. It was a tactical discussion.
Q
Senator, would it be your judgment that the
Gore amendment might be vetoed unless it is changed in conference?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President has not given any
indication of what he would do on the tax bill. I think he
hopes for a tax bill that is very close to the Administration's
recommendations. The closer it is the more pleased he will
be with it. What action he takes, I would say, would be
determined by that guideline.
MORE
- 4 -
Q
In discussing the possibility of a special
session, Representative Ford said unless the appropriation
bills are through the Congress, and Senator Scott said
unless all appropriation bills -- is that an interchangeable
term?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Yes, I think we are talking
exactly on the same wave length. We have two appropration
bills yet to pass the House -- Defense and Foreign Aid --
plus the third, the supplemental, which, of course, will
come the last part of the session this year.
We will get both of those appropriation
bills through the House next week, but there are, I think,
four or five appropriation bills that have either not been
acted upon by the Senate or are still in conference. It is
absolutely essential that all of these be through the
Congress and awaiting the President's signature before we
adjourn, or the President was very firm that he will call
us back into special session, and he added, as a postscript,
he will be here to work with us.
Q
You also said affirmative action in other areas,
too.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There are some other legislative
areas where he would hope that the Congress would do something,
as in the crime package, particularly.
Q
Is that now in the Senate? What you just
said indicated that the log jam is in the Senate, is that
correct?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It is a log jam in the Congress,
although the Senate can't be blamed for the fact that two
appropriation bills have not passed the House yet,
but they will be over there next week.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Senator Scott just said he was satisfied with the
present pace of the work in the Senate.
SENATOR SCOTT: I said "present." I said that some of
our troubles go back to what we did not do earlier and that means
that I am not satisfied with the Senate's record for the year. I
said that we are now -- perhaps I should add the word "belatedly"
-- working quite hard, but we are confronted with some problems
that arose because we didn't start working hard enough soon enough.
Q
If the Senate works at the present rate until the
23rd of December will .that make it unnecessary to have the post-
Christmas session?
SENATOR SCOTT: That is a universal hope and I would
particularly hope that the Senate would stay in session later in
the evening in order to get this done.
Q
You said before that this is without precedent in
American history, this situation. What is the reason for this?
Where does the fault lie for this breakdown?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think it is fairly obvious that it
is the function of Congress to pass authorization bills and
appropriation bills, that in not acting early enough on the
authorization bills you had the dominoe effect on the appropria-
tions bills. Therefore, Congress, controlled in both Houses by
the Democratic Party, has for the first time in American history
come to the last month of the year without acting satisfactorily
or adequately on all appropriations bills and should they go over
there would be a danger that some could not be acted upon until
next February.
That is the situation which is not acceptable to the
Executive Department. I must say I have never seen the President
any tougher than he was today. He said"we are going to be
responsible down here and we plead with all of you in Congress
to meet us on the same plane of responsibility."
Q
Senator, I wonder if we could get your thinking about
some of the counter causes that have been expressed by those
Democrats who lead the House and Senate now that primarily the
problem that you are facing today can be laid at the doorstep
of the Executive and that the President himself did not push in
the earlier sessions.
SENATOR SCOTT: You remember the President's message
earlier that the blame could be assessed on the Executive and
Legislative, that the proper competition at the polls next year
should be on which Party has done the most effective work and
has done the most work for the benefit of the public interest.
I would say on behalf of the Executive Branch that we
are still to remember that many of these messages came up in
March, April and May. The crime bills have been waiting nearly
all year for action, and not a thing has happened on them.
The narcotics problem increases, the crime rate
increases in the District of Columbia. There has been no
action whatever on those matters.
MORE
- 6 -
I
If the Congress was called back, how much
time would you have before the new Congress is supposed to
meet in order to clean up the business?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The Second Session of this Congress
is supposed to reconvene January 3, unless the Congress, by
action on its own, selects another date. So if we come back
December 26, we have four or five working days in there,
and then, of course, the Congress has to reconvene unless
we change the date from January 3.
Q Do you have an adjournment date set now or
just discussed?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There has been discussion, anywhere
from the 20th of December to the 24th. I am convinced,
under the current circumstances, that we will have to be
here Christmas Eve, and then, of course, if the job is not
done, the President is going to call us back December 26,
and I think he should.
Q Could his calling you back be not necessary
should the Congress continue in session?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: If the Congress continues in
session, then, of course, there will not be any need. We
are faced, however, under those circumstances you are alluding
to, with the fact that one body cannot be in adjournment
more than three days without the consent of the other.
If that was what the Leadership and the Congress
would decide as an alternative to the President's proposal, I
can envisage some real battles on the Hill on just how these
delays and adjournment or recesses might be voted on.
Q
Do you think this delay is going to throw the
Voting Rights Bill over until next year?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I understand it, the Voting
Rights Bill is at least tentatively programmed in the House
on next Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. There may be some
change because of the arbitrary capricious action of a little
handful on the House Committee on Education because of the
OEO bill. That might be substituted at this point. I can't
tell.
Q
Does the revenue loss under the Gore amendment,
in your judgment, fall below that level the President indicated
earlier that he would find unacceptable?
SENATOR SCOTT: The revenue loss under the Gore
amendment is very high. As I recall the tables, it would
create a deficit of $9.3 billion in 1973. It would move
progressively toward that, somewhat over $2 billion, I believe,
in the first year of its operation.
This is much more than is manageable, I would say.
I don't want to say what the President would do, but I would
hope it would be changed. Not only that, the Gore amendment
is inequitable in that, while it gives some benefit to
groups of taxpayers with very large families, it actually
involves higher taxes on other groups in other categories
MORE
- 7 -
such as the childless couple or the couple with one child or
two. They are worse off, at least under some of the other
alternative provisions that have been discussed in both
Houses on the Republican side.
So I think the Gore amendment is not equitable, tax-
wise, in dealing fairly with all groups of taxpayers, and as
you know, by eliminating certain increases in the automatic
deductible allowances, it would interfere with the removal of
large numbers of people from the tax rolls as contemplated
by the Administration. Some five million would be removed
under the Administration bill. The Gore amendment would have
an impact on that, too.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:45 A.M. EST.)