Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains White House press releases of press conference held by Representative Gerald Ford and Senator Hugh Scott.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
12130728
label
Joint Press Releases Senate-House Republican Leadership, 1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12130728
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Joint Press Releases Senate-House Republican Leadership, 1970
description
This file contains White House press releases of press conference held by Representative Gerald Ford and Senator Hugh Scott.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Chronological Files
subjects
Republican National Committee (U.S.)
U.S. House of Representatives. 3/4/1789-
U.S. Senate. 3/4/1789-
Republican Party (U.S. : 1854- )
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12130728
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1970-12-31
month
12
year
1970
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1970-02-01
month
2
year
1970
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
7c0ee4118b64a0d1
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D5, folder "Joint Press Releases Senate-House
Republican Leadership, 1970" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D5 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 17, 1970
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 11:07 A.M. EST.
SENATOR SCOTT: Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Leadership meeting today heard a discussion by
the President and Dr. Kissinger of the President's forthcoming
message on the state of the world, which will be designated
as A New Strategy for Peace, and which, you know, will go up
tomorrow at noon.
There will be a Bipartisan Leadership meeting for a
briefing at 4:30 this afternoon. The President will discuss
the various regions of the world and the American posture in
those regions. He will point out how the new foreign policy
for the United States differs or varies from earlier foreign
policy attitudes of post-World War II.
He will outline some very definite American positions
with regard to the Pacific, the Western Hemisphere, Europe and
other areas. The details of the message, of course, are not
available until tomorrow.
Q
Will the President do these things in the
message or in the Leadership meeting?
SENATOR SCOTT: There will be a briefing to the
Bipartisan Leadership at 4:30 today, and the message will
come up for release at noon,tomorrow and will be accompanied by a
breakdown or analysis.
Q
Is the briefing here in the White House with
the President?
SENATOR SCOTT: It is on the Hill. The briefing will
be conducted by White House officials. It will include
Dr. Kissinger.
Q
Senator, did the President express any concern
to you or did you express concern to him about the economy? Was
there any discussion about the economy at all?
SENATOR SCOTT: Not directly, no. This was a
discussion generally on foreign policy.
Q
Will this be the foreign policy group on the
Hill, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and so on, or will it be
larger?
MORE
- 2 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I think it will be the Leadership,
plus Chairmen and ranking Members of the Foreign Policy
and, I assume, Armed Services.
Q
Did you talk about pending legislation?
SENATOR SCOTT: There was discussion of the new
HEW-Labor bill, yes.
Q
What was said or what is the outlook?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think Mr. Ford can comment on
that first.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The matter of the Labor-HEW
appropriations bill was discussed. The Administration does
support the main thrust of this appropriations bill. Secretary
Finch is appearing before the House Committee on Rules this
afternoon, I understand, at 2:00. There will be an attempt
made to get a rule waiving all points of order so that the
bill can come up tomorrow, with the language additions that
were made in the Committee as a whole.
Q
What was the President's position on the Whitten
Amendment?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I said, the President does
support the main thrust of the bill. He does feel that the
provisions that were included basically coincide with the
points he has made in the last week; one, that you should not
bus for the purpose of racial balance. He does believe firmly
in the neighborhood school concept, and the language in the
bill does seem to be helpful in that regard.
The bill also seeks to equally apply the decisions
that have been made by the Supreme Court on a nation-wide
basis. So, basically, the Administration is supporting the
bill as it has been reported by the full Committee, although I
think I should say we are taking a careful look at the language
to see whether. there should be any minor modifications or
any additions to it.
Q
Jerry, are you saying the Administration now
does support the Whitten Amendment contrary to what happened
in the Senate last year?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No. What I am saying is that the
Administration does support the basic thrust of the bill as
it has been reported.
Q
But does that include the Whitten Amendment?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We do feel that the provisions in
the bill coincide with the President's statements of the
last week. I add, as I did a minute ago, we are carefully
studying the language and I would not rule out entirely the
possibility of an addition or some minor modifications.
0
Where, Mr. Ford, are the differences between
the Whitten Amendment and what the President believes?
MORE
- 3 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Quite frankly, we are in the
process right now of analyzing the bill which was just reported
yesterday. The Secretary of HEW, Members of the Rules
Committee, Members of the Committee on Appropriations, have
been working since the bill was reported yesterday, and I
cannot give you a categorical answer.
SENATOR SCOTT: A little later today I will be able
to give you some further information on some amendments
that I presently plan to offer in the Senate with reference
to the two Stennis Amendments, the bussing amendment and
the general application of the laws amendment. I can say
that on the bussing, what I propose will be in line with the
President's clearly stated views, views that I believe to
be the views of a majority in both Houses of Congress, and that
is that no local education agency shall be forced or required
to bus purely to achieve racial balance or to overcome
racial imbalance.
The language is still in preparation. I have only
a rough draft, but I will have an amendment to that
Stennis Amendment, and an amendment to the other Stennis
Amendment, if the parliamentary situation permits.
Q
What is the difference between that and Senator
Stennis' amendment on bussing?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, I am not yet fully prepared to
discuss all of the differences, because we have had only some
preliminary thought given to it, but the basic difference is
to make it clear that the Congress does not favor required
bussing to overcome racial imbalance. To a degree it is a
restatement of the 1964 Act.
2
To how much of a degree?
SENATOR SCOTT: It is largely a restatement. The
wording will be different.
Q
Did the President comment to you on Secretary
Laird's report to him?
SENATOR SCOTT: He did not.
Q
Was the Carswell nomination and its scheduling
discussed at all?
SENATOR SCOTT: It was not.
Q
What is the President's position, as you
understand it, about the other equal application amendment?
Is he for it or against it?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am certainly not in a position to
speak for the President in that regard. Speaking for myself,
I will have an amendment to offer at the proper time.
I
Could you give us some idea of what the amendment
is going to say?
SENATOR SCOTT: In an hour or two I will be able to
give you some idea on that. It will be a very simple change
in phraseology. I can't tell you yet.
MORE
- 4 -
Q
Senator, where do you stand on the reported
Voting Rights Bill proposal that you are supposed to have
worked up. Does the President approve that?
SENATOR SCOTT: I have not asked the President whether
he approves or disapproves some compromises which are being
prodded about but have not yet been brought formally before
the Judiciary Committee. There will be some suggestions made,
and I will go into those suggestions, with regard to a possible
solution of the problems since the Senate and the House might
well disagree on the wording, and I hope through some wording
of my own to avoid that, by advocating an extension of
the Voting Rights Act with certain features which the Administra-
tion would certainly like to see included.
Q
Are you working with the White House on the
wording of these two amendments which you propose to put up?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, I am not working with the White
House on the wording of the amendments, but whatever I do,
I hope they will not be regarded as contentious or argumentative.
It is an effort to achieve a compromise.
Were you referring to the Voting Rights Amendment?
Q
Yes.
SENATOR SCOTT: My answer was to the Voting Rights
Amendment. On the School Aid Bill, I have had some discussions
with officials of the Department of HEW.
Q
Senator, do you favor the thrust of the Whitten
and Jonas Amendments on the HEW bill?
SENATOR SCOTT: I would be inclined to have somewhat
a differing view, but it may not be necessary by the time
it comes to the Senate. I don't know of the form in which the
bill will leave the House. You heard Mr. Ford say that broadly
the President supports the thrust of the bill.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Could either one of you explain how it is that
last year the Administration very vigorously opposed the Whitten
Admendment, worked against it, finally got it defeated and this
year you say that the President is in general agreement with the
thrust of it now? How do we come to this turn-around?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think Mr. Ford's answer to that was
that the President is in general agreement with the thrust of
the bill. I do not regard it as a turn-around. My views in
the Senate remain as before and we will have to see whether
these can be worked out.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: If I might add a comment to that,
I think in the interim we have had several Court decisions that
are very narrow in scope, but at least in my opinion -- and I
emphasize, in my opinion -- have been very impractical as to
application.
I think it is fundamentally wrong for a court to
decide that a child or many children should be taken out of
one school during a term or a semester and arbitrarily trans-
ferred to another school.
Now, in my judgment, this impractical kind of court
decision requires the Congress -- and I emphasize, the Congress
-- to take a fresh look at what the Federal role should be in the
overall problem.
Q Senator, could you tell us what difference you see,
if you do see a difference, between bussing to achieve racial
balance, or to obviate racial imbalance, and bussing to achieve
an integrated school?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, I think you have stated a
question that is more philosophical than factual. The
Vice President will head a Commission for the purpose of
determining whether any injustices or maladjustments have been
broughtabout by virtue of court decisions, State court decisions
in most cases.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on de facto segre-
gation and therefore, the whole question of bussing is somewhat
up in the air since it has been pointed out by a number of people
that the very word is confusing semantically. Almost all
children are taken to school by buses nowadays, but required
bussing to achieve racial imbalance is philosophically undesir-
able and I think the President has firmly taken a position on
that.
I have, too. If we can get a vote on that issue alone
as distinguished from Freedom of Choice and other issues as raised
by the Stennis Amendment, I think there would be less difficulty
in getting Senate approval of that single issue. I think that
often each school district will have to be treated as a separate
entity and I believe that is what the Vice President's commission
will address itself to, school district by school district,
particularly where they have been affected by a court decision
and particularly in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has
not yet ruled on the issue of de facto segregation.
MORE
-6-
Q
Does that mean, Senator, that in certain
districts bussing would be proper for integrating schools?
SENATOR SCOTT: In certain districts voluntary bussing
is used now and in certain districts an agreement might be
worked out for voluntary bussing. But to require bussing is,
in my judgment, something the Congress has already acted on
in the 1964 Act and will probably reassert, perhaps more broadly
this time.
Q
And that is the President's view as you under-
stand it?
SENATOR SCOTT: As I understand it, that is the
President's view.
Q
Senator, why is it necessary to restate it? If
it is already the law, why is it necessary to restate it?
SENATOR SCOTT: Because there are attempts to unstate it
by adding to that established principle other features in a
single amendment. I think we had better get back to the single
restatement of that issue rather than amendments which combine
bussing with Freedom of Choice or bussing with other objectives,
some of which might be contrary to the court's decision.
Q
Senator, this Administration has taken the position
in several appeals in the Supreme Court that the 1964 Amendment
does not apply to the dis-establishment of a dual system where
that was established by law or policy.
Would your amendment overturn that?
SENATOR SCOTT: You are asking me to sit as a court and
I am entirely unable to perform the judicial function. I am a
member of the legislature and I would not be able to answer that.
Q
How do you distinguish between voluntary bussing
and forced bussing?
SENATOR SCOTT: One is required and one is not. I used
to understand in school the difference between what was voluntary
and what was required. I learned the hard way.
Q
I am getting to this point: If the local school
board determines that bussing is at least part of the answer for
an integration program and that feature of the plan would be
ratified by a court, is that voluntary or required?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think you have to differentiate
-- if I may interject here -- if the local school authorities,
with local funds, with the concurrence of the local people,
decide that they want to bus for any purpose, that is their
prerogative.
What we at the Federal level, and particularly in the
Congress, are saying is that you cannot, with Federal funds,
require bussing to eliminate racial imbalance. What the local
people want to do with their own approval is one thing. But
we are saying at the Federal level you cannot require this
bussing to eliminate racial imbalance.
MORE
-7-
SENATOR SCOTT: Moreoever, as I understand the
President's viewpoint now, and undertaking to speak for him,
he is in favor of the concept of neighborhood schools, and
even at the lower level, if there were a system of bussing
entered into which was disruptive of the neighborhood school
system, that also might come under the review of the Vice
President's committee.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 11:25 A.M.)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 3, 1970
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. EST.
SENATOR SCOTT: Ladies and Gentlemen, as you know,
the President is sending up the message to Congress on
Education Reform. You have it and you will be briefed right
after this, I understand, by Dr. Moynihan and Dr. Allen.
He will propose a National Institute of Education, a
Commission on School Finance, he will discuss a Corporation
for Public Broadcasting. They will be $52 million further
funds for early learning, and on the Right to Read, $200 million
will be requested in Titles II and III.
There will be $116 million in Title III, Supplementary
Education; $50 million in Title II for books and similar tools
of the trade, and $34 million extra money for initiating reading
programs,
The Right to Read is stressed strongly. There are about
15 million school children in this country who can't read well
enough to understand adequately what is going on. There are
8 million adults who are functional illiterates. The Right to
Read Program is one where the Federal Government can marshal
the resources. It is looked upon not merely as a Federal
program, but a nationwide effort whereby all of the school
systems will be engaged.
This is very much of a reform and innovative program
which examines the school systems of America, and wherein they
have failed, with particular attention to the early learning
process. We heard today that a child's educational capacity
is about half formed at the age of two years and three months.
So that is a rather significant factor, and that will be taken
into consideration in dealing with a child under five.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As Senator Scott has indicated,
Pat Moynihan and Dr. Allen took most of the time briefing
us on the situation that is going to be presented in the message.
One set of statistics that impressed me tremendously
was the fact that in 1945 the total U. S. commitment to
education, Federal, State and local, was about $4 billion a year,
two percent of our GNP. In 1969, the total commitment,
Federal, State and local was about $62 billion and slightly
more than seven percent of our GNP, and that the Federal
Government contributed only seven percent of the $62 billion
in this total educational effort
MORE
- 2 -
SENATOR SCOTT: The ability to read, Jerry, it was
brought out, has not appreciably improved in over 50 years.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The other subject that was
discussed is one that is currently before the House, and it
is what to do with the somewhat controversial Department of
HEW-Labor appropriations bill.
It is our feeling that the Senate version should
be accepted by the House. The White House will accept the
Senate version and we will do what we can to see that the
House, in one way or another, in a somewhat difficult
parliamentary situation, will try to accept the Senate version.
It is not entirely perfect. No bill is, and certainly
this one would be difficult to achieve, but it is the best
solution to a long and complicated controversy.
Q
Senator, you mentioned that a child's capacity
for learning is formed at two years, three months, according
to whom?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, according to Dr. Moynihan
and Dr. Allen. Dr. Moyniahn made the point first that
approximately one-half of the child's capacity to learn
throughout life is formed at the age of two years, three
months, a fact, he says, which has only recently be developed
by the people who do that kind of thing.
Q
Was there a discussion of anything else,
other than the HEW bill and the educational message?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, there was not.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:55 A.M. EST.)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 17, 1970
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 11:03 A.M. EST.
SENATOR SCOTT: Ladies and Gentlemen: This morning one of
the Treasury Buildingswas evacuated because of a bomb threat.
The President is reviewing and giving careful consideration to
recommendations with regard to thepossible need for Federal
legislation to meet the spate of bombings across the country.
The areas, of course, where the Federal Government
is concerned, have yet to be worked out, but it could, of course,
include Federal buildings, Interstate Commerce, where offices
in private buildings are occupied by firms engaged in
interstate commerce, and possibly the protection of Federal
officials, the protection of vehicles and transportation of
explosives across State lines.
So I think you can expect a message or suggested
legislation somewhat later on that, in the near future.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: A major part of the meeting this
morning involved comments by Dr. McCracken as to the situation
as far as the economy is concerned, and that led to a message
which will be sent to the Hill today, which is entitled,
"A Statement by the President on Combating Construction
Inflation and Meeting Future Construction Needs."
This message will point out the things that the
President thinks have to be done in the area of vocational
education, job training for construction workers.
There was discussion about the state of the economy.
It was the consensus of those there, following the report by
Dr. McCracken, that the state of the economy was good. The
President reaffirmed what he has stated before, that this
Administration will be an activist Administration in meeting
any problems that might develop in the economy.
We were encouraged by the various reports indicating
that the inflationary problems were cooling. At the same
time, there was no serious problem developing in the field of
unemployment.
The President, in the message, as you will find,
is releasing the directive that was put into effect, I think,
in September of 1969, the limitation that involved Federally
assisted construction programs with State and local Governments.
That limitation will be lifted.
MORE
- 2 -
It will have an impact on the construction industry
across the country. It will have, however, no serious
adverse impact on the budgetary expenditures as far as the
Federal Government is concerned for this fiscal year, or for
next.
As a matter of fact, this action by the President
to release the limitation is a part of the program or
plan that has been worked out to meet any inflationary
problems or any unemployment problems that might develop.
In addition, the President wrote Senator Scott and
myself, as well as the Democratic Leaders, yesterday,
indicating that he was recommending legislation that would
make available $250 million for the savings and loans. If
that legislation is authorized and funded, it means that
some $6 billion or more would be released for the housing
industry and in addition, the President is requesting
the Congress to add $50 million in Federal funding for
Sections 235 and 236 in the housing legislation.
All of these steps are taken as a part of a well
considered plan to, on the one hand be careful about the
problems of inflation, and at the same time, meet any problems
related to the future of the economy.
SENATOR SCOTT: Let me add one thing. The President's
request for consideration of Federal legislation on bombing was
made to his department heads on Friday last.
On the matter of the removal of the freeze on Federally
assisted construction, that amounts to $1.2 billion, and also
it releases $300 million by the States who will be encouraged
to do that. Then, other States, hopefully, as the bond market
improves, will be able to release money which has been backed up.
New York State, for example, has $900 million in
projects backed up waiting for a favorable bond market.
Q
Does the release of this money indicate a fear
that the inflation has peaked and you want now to avoid a
recession by pumping money back into the economy?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the release of the money
is aimed at making certain that the construction industry,
both broad construction as well as the housing industry.-
they have suffered the most in the last six to twelve months --
and this actionis aimed at trying to remedy the problems in
that particular area.
As I understand it, the construction industry is
about $100 billion a year, a third of it in housing, a third
of it in State and local and Federal projects, and another
third in industry. In order to try and equalize the situation
for this particular industry, these actions are being taken.
Q
But I am speaking of timing now. Why are you
doing it now?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Because these industries have
suffered the most in the last six or twelve months, and this
is an effort to give them an opportunity to get moving in the
economy as a whole.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
I think following Peter's point, that late
last Summer when these restrictions were put on, for the purpose
of having to deal with inflation, and now the restrictions
are being taken off, what has changed in that intervening
time to change the President's decision about what should be
done?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think there is a feeling that
the problems of inflation have been defeated, and that now
we have to try and equalize the development of the economy in
the months ahead.
As I said at the outset, the President's message
is a rather broad one. It not only provides for the actions
that I have indicated in the Federally assisted construction
programs, but points out the expansion of training programs,
vocational education, manpower training.
I might add, one of the points made in the message,
and I understand that Secretary Shultz will emphasize this later,
is that the President speaks out about the need to upgrade in
the minds of the American people, the craftsmen and skilled
workers who are in some of these trades, who have not been
adequately recognized in the past.
On Page Four of the message, the President speaks
very emphatically about a need to restore pride in a
craft and to promote the dignity of skilled labor. I think
we have to do something in this area to bring in people who
will create a bigger labor market in these particular trades.
MORE
- 4 -
Q Were there any apprehensions expressed this
morning about the possibility of a recession?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: None whatsoever. As a matter of
fact, the President was very affirmative in his belief that the
economy was healthy and that his Administration was going to be
an activist Administration in foreseeing any problems that might
develop and taking affirmative action ahead of schedule so we
would not have any problems in that area of unemployment.
SENATOR SCOTT: We expect 1970 to be a good year in
every way.
Q Mr. Ford, could you give us some evidence that
inflation has been defeated?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There will be a briefing by Dr.
McCracken later this morning. He is far more familiar than
I am with the details as to why, in his judgment, we have
dampened down the inflationary problems. But I am sure he
can convince you, as he did me and others, that we are on top
of the problem and that we can look forward in the months ahead
to a decrease in the inflationary pressures that have plagued
us for the last five years.
Q
Does that mean, Mr. Ford, that the danger of
skidding into a recession has been averted?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Absolutely. The danger of any
recession as far as the future is concerned is nil. This
Administration has affirmatively met the problems of any
recession, and from now on, we are going to be building forward
on a stable economy rather than on one such as we have had in
the past, in the 1950s and the early part of the 1960s. I
might point out, the question isalways raised about unemploy-
ment and my good friend Carl Albert, last week, criticized the
Administration for the 4.2 unemployment figure that was
announced.
I did a little checking, and I went back to the
records of the early 1960s. Let me read to you the unemployment
figures for 1961, 6.7 percent; 1962, 5.5 percent unemployment;
1963, 5.7 percent unemployment; 1964, 5.2 percent. As a matter
of fact, the average in those four years in the early days of
the Kennedy Administration, would indicate over 5.5 percent
unemployment. We think that is unacceptable, totally unaccept-
able. This Administration is going to maximize its effort to
keep unemployment down to a minimum.
Q
Mr. Ford, it sounds as if you are ready to
take on Larry O'Brien in his statement Sunday that the economy
would be a major issue.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I didn't hear it. What did he say?
Q He said he thought the major issue in the 1970
elections would be the economy.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: In my judgment it is because the
economy is going to be good and healthy in 1970 and it will not
be an issue. The Democrats won't have anything to talk about.
MORE
- 5 -
SENATOR SCOTT: Larry O'Brien asked me at the
Gridiron Club to lend him ten until just the next day, but
he didn't say ten what. (Laughter)
We have a later report on the evacuation of one of
Treasury Buildings. It is the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
at 14th and C Streets.
Q
That legislation you mentioned, will that deal
with bombing threats as well as actual bombings?
SENATOR SCOTT: I would expect that the legislation
would deal with bombings and with conspiracies to commit that
act.
Q Are you satisfied with the security on the Hill?
SENATOR SCOTT: Not entirely, no. I think the
security on the Hill could be improved. I would hate for us
to be isolated or for anything to be done to prevent free
access by constituents, but I think the whole security problem
is great in the country and great in Washington, D. C.
Q
You mentioned that last Friday the President
asked for some report. What did he ask for, legislation to
be drawn up?
SENATOR SCOTT: It is my understanding that he has
asked for a review and a study to indicate whether legislation
in the Federal field is necessary to deal with this spread
of bombings across the country. I had mentioned some
areas that might well be covered by that study.
Q When is that study suppose to get back to him?
SENATOR SCOTT: I would expect in a few days. He
had hoped to have it early this week. It will be very soon.
Q Senator, do you have a head count on the Carswell
vote, and can you give it to us?
SENATOR SCOTT: Senator Griffin will be taking a
head count very shortly on that. There are enough votes,
and more, to confirm Judge Carswell.
Q Senator, did you discuss the President's coming
civil rights statement this morning?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, there was no discussion on that.
Q What do you expect to come?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, I think we had better wait
and see what that statement contains. If I am asked, I will
discuss it, but at this point I have no knowledge. But I
meant if I were asked at the White House, I would discuss it
here, but I have no knowledge of it.
Q
Did you discuss the Israeli jet decision?
SENATOR SCOTT: That was not brought up today.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 11:16 A.M. EST.)
K- Pls Hartman send to Bob noffice Copy
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
B1
APRIL 7, 1970
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:20 A.M. EST.
SENATOR SCOTT: Ladies and Gentlemen: Much of the
discussion today turned on the agreement reached between the
postal unions and the Government, and this agreement
stresses the importance of the collective bargaining provisions--
the immediate general pay raise to Government employees and
some subsequent pay adjustments which are tied to the postal
reorganization proposals.
As you know, this agreement was entered into and in
many ways perhaps greatly facilitated by the help of Mr. George
Meany, whose whole approach was very statesman-like.
Since Congressional action is called for, in our view
it is essential that what is sent to the White House shall
include postal reorganization as well as the other features,
since the postal unions have agreed, and Mr. Meany has agreed,
to give their support to a package treatment.
Also, it must include Congressional action on a pay-
as-you-go proposal, which will include a new postage stamp ---
We might put Larry O'Brien's face on it --- and acceleration
of estate and gift taxes.
The entire package is essential, and to send down
simply a pay raise would be entirely out of consonance with the
agreements which have been entered into.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Let me just reiterate what Senator
Scott said. It was the strong feeling of the President, and
I think we all share it, that the agreement which was reached --
and a copy of it has been made available publicly -- is fair
to postal employees and to Government employees.
It also provides fiscal responsibility in the
proposed increased revenues through the Post Office Department
as well as through the Internal Revenue Code.
But thirdly, and probably as important as any of the
other two, is the fact that there is an agreement to get postal
reform. This legislation, hopefully, will materialize in the
Congress in the very near future. Unions have agreed to be
for it rather than to oppose it.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
MORE
- 2 -
Speaking of Larry O'Brien, he was, a few years ago,
the initiator of postal reform. Of course, up until the
assumption of his new responsibilities, he was one of
two who was leading the campaign across the nation to try and
achieve postal reform.
One other subject was discussed. The Secretary of
Labor did call to our attention the absolute necessity of
Congressional action before the end of the week on the
legislation recommended by the President in the area of the
labor-management dispute in the railroad industry.
The Senato Committee took action yesterday and
hopefully it will be programmed in not only the Senate but in the
House, so that we can have this matter settled once and for all
by the agreement in legislative form that was agreed to by
both the labor negotiators and the management people who
were responsible.
SENATOR SCOTT: Today I am going to ask Senator
Mansfield to expedite the listing on the calendar of the
Senate Committee action on the railway labor legislation.
Q
Is there any realistic prospect for a ten-cent
stamp?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think there is considerable
prospect that postal rates will be increased, and it is hoped that
the agreement will be for a ten-cent stamp.
Q
Do you two gentlemen favor the ten-cent stamp?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am going to favor whatever postal
rate increase is essential to make this a pay-as-you-go situation.
When you increase peoples' pay, and they very much need it,
it has to be approached in this sense. It is fair, it is
over-due, it is just. But in order to do it, you have to find
a means to pay for it.
Ω
Did you discuss what will happen to the President's
budget if you don't get that ten-cent stamp and you do go
ahead with the six percent wage increase for all the employees?
SENATOR SCOTT: Obviously there was a good deal of
discussion and there was a general feeling, and I think the
President shares it, that it would be irresponsible to act
on a pay increase without providing the means to pay for it also.
It would not be in keeping with the agreement made by the
Government and the postal unions.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I understand it, the total annual
impact of the pay increases will be approximately $2-1/2 billion.
If we are going to have a responsible fiscal policy, there has
to be some means found to raise additional revenue, otherwise
you are going to undermine totally our effort to do something
effectively about problems of inflation as far as the Federal
budget is concerned.
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I intend to
support the kind of package recommended by the President for
both the speed up of the estate and gift taxes and the
additional revenue needed and necessary through the increased
rates in first, second, third and fourth class mail.
MORE
BERALD FORD LIBRABY
- 3 -
SENATOR SCOTT: The post office reorganization is
a real bonanza because it will save the Government, as a
self-contained unit, about $1 billion a year. It becomes
very important, and I think most people agree that even
three weeks ago it did not look likely of achievement. But
now that it has labor and Government support, its chances
are vastly improved.
Q
Do you feel that the unions are living up to
what you describe as their agreement to push for postage increases?
SENATOR SCOTT: There is strong evidence that
they are actively living up to their agreement.
Ω
Senator Scott, does the Administration have any
alternative way of paying for this increase, or if the pay
increase should come back here without the accompanying
legislation on raising the price of stamps, would the whole
agreement be out of the window and would we be back where we
started?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think that is anticipating something
that at this time I cannot answer, but I can only say that it
would not be responsible in the Congress to pass the
pay increase without the means to pay for it.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I understand it, the additional
revenue features of the overall package were not a part of the
agreement between the union negotiators and the Government
negotiators. They did agree on the pay increase, six percent
for all employees and eight percent for postal employees, tied
with postal reorganization.
The additional revenue features are the recommendations
of the Administration which is a fiscally responsible position
and hopefully the union representatives would be helpful, but
it was not a part of the particular agreement that I understood
was signed.
Q Did you discuss this morning any action you
might take if this chain of events happens where just one
of those bills comes back to you?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think itis premature to pass
judgment on what might happen. We do have in hand an agreement
signed by the postal employee representatives as well as the
department. This does include the six percent for everybody,
and the eight percent for the postal employees, tied in with
postal reorganization.
We would expect, with the Administration back of the
agreement, and with the labor unions, including Mr. Meany
supporting it, that this kind of a package ought to go through
the Congress and there should not arise that contingency that
you suggest.
The revenue side is another matter, but I personally
think it is absolutely essential.
MORE
- 4 -
Q
Senator, the postal reform has nothing to do
with the six percent increase, is that not correct? It is only
tied to the additional eight percent?
SENATOR SCOTT: It is tied only to the eight percent,
the postal reform. The six percent was a separate thing, but
all of it was negotiated as a part of the total agreement.
Q What can you tell us about G. Harrold Carswell?
SENATOR SCOTT: I can say that the President is
confident that Judge Carswell will be confirmed.
Q
Do you share that, Senator?
SENATOR SCOTT: I share that, yes.
Q
Will you vote in favor of him?
SENATOR SCOTT: I will vote in favor of the confirmation.
I have said that before.
Q
Do you have a nose count as to how much it will
pass by?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think we had better wait until
tomorrow. There are some people yet to be talked to, pro and
con, and for an actual nose count, it will probably be better
to wait until tomorrow.
I can say to you that I gave you a correct one
yesterday, exactly.
Q
Is there any significant opposition to postal
reform? Is it increasing?
SENATOR SCOTT: There was opposition originally, but I
think it is decreasing. It is decreasing because it appears
to be the one way the Congress and the Government can extract
themselves from an exceedingly difficult condition under the
present circumstances.
MORE
- 5 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I understand it, Postmaster
General Blount and the union representatives are finalizing
a total agreement as to details in the next day or two. Once
this is done I think you will find that the Congress will be
very helpful and will expedite affirmative action. The main
thing we have to achieve through postal reform is to get rid of
the old political tradition in the Post Office Department and to
get some efficiency into the .Post Office Department. If you
do, you will get better service and you will also be able to
get better service, I think, in the long run for fewer dollars
and lesser increases in postal rates.
Q
Senator, could you clarify for me again, please,
the agreement with George Meany and with the union? Did that
have anything to do with the increase from six loents to ten
cents?
SENATOR SCOTT: The agreement which is available to
you, the first paragraph says "The general wage increase of six
percent retroactive to December 27, 1969, for all postal employees."
Then thereis, among the various subheadings, Section (b), "An
additional 8 percent wage increase for postal workers effective
as of the date the enabling legislation becomes law." referring
to a postal authority of some kind, a self-contained postal
authority.
Q
My question, Senator, was whether they indicated
any agreement to go along with the increase in postage from six
cents to ten cents.
SENATOR SCOTT: That is an undertaking by the Admini-
stration as to how to raise the money. The unions do not, in
this agreement, undertake a commitment as to how the money is
to be raised. But obviously, they are aware that if they are
to get a pay increase it has to come from somewhere and that
means the taxpayer.
Q Senator, has there been any discussion about
minimums inasmuch as the ten-cent stamp appears to be headed
for trouble? Has there been talk about what the Administration
possibly might settle for?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, there has been no great discussion
on any shrinkage there. The ten-cent stamp seems to be a good
target to shoot for and they can develop Congressional sentiment
from there.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't think it is fair to say
at this stage that the ten-cent first class stamp is doomed.
I believe when the facts are laid out before the committee
there is a possibility that the committee will act affirmatively
on the proposals. I don't think that we should assume at this
date that the package for fiscal responsibility is doomed.
Q Was there any element here at any time of any of
your members saying "Why was the agreement made with the unions
and not with the committees of Congress?"
SENATOR SCOTT: That was not discussed.
Q
The Members of Congress feel their place is being
usurped by the unions.
MORE
- 6 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I think the Members of Congress are
in close touch with the White House so they are fully aware of
what is going on. I am sure they are consulted from time to time.
Ω
Chairman Dulski, the Democratic Chairman of the
House Committee, said at no time had he been invited to any
meeting at the White House and he did not know why.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I believe the immediate need was for
action between the unions and the management of the Post Office
Department. There was nothing Congress could do about the
problems of the strike. This had to be between management and
labor representatives.
Once that agreement has been achieved, then I think
it is the proper thing to do to bring in the Congress and to get
us to help to implement this agreement between the two sides
in the dispute.
Q Senator Scott, earlier you said it would be
irresponsible to have a pay increase without the means to pay
for it. Can we take that to mean that the President would not
accept one without the other?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think you can take it to mean that
the President feels that his Administration and his Party's
position is that we should operate on a pay-as-you-go basis.
I don't attempt to say what would happen to legislation when
it comes down here because it is impossible to say : what form it
will take. The going phrase here is "pay as you go." That is
the intention of the Party leadership and of the President, I
am sure.
Q Would you say that under no circumstances the
President will accept a deficit in the budget?
SENATOR SCOTT: I can only say that I have not asked
him, but I know that the thought is quite abhorrent to him.
Q
Senator Scott, is this something new, that
government services must pay for themselves?
SENATOR SCOTT: Since the Republicans came in it has been
revived, yes.
Q Do you subscribe to that?
SENATOR SCOTT: Generally speaking, yes. I would
like to see it. All of us have our own individual aberrations
at times. Consistency is still only a semi-precious jewel, but
I would say by and large it ought to be adhered to.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:40 A.M. EST)
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 9, 1970
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:35 A.M. EDT.
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership Meeting has just
concluded. It lasted about two hours. Senator Scott and
Congressman Ford are late now for a meeting, so we would
like to keep this session relatively short.
We will begin with Senator Scott.
SENATOR SCOTT: We discussed the proposed revisions
to go to the Senate Finance Committee on the Family Assistance
Program on which some background information will be released
to you tomorrow, I understand.
This was discussed with Senator Williams as well
as representatives of the Administration.
We also discussed the Byrd Amendment and the Cooper-
Church Amendment. I reported that it would appear that there
are sufficient votes -- no guarantees -- but it looks as if there
are sufficient votes, very probably, to pass the Byrd Amendment.
We have a further concern, and that is Subsection 3
of the Cooper-Church Amendment, which operates as sort of a
Congressional amendment to the Guam or Nixon doctrine in that
it would inhibit Asians helping Asians, and therefore, this is
a matter of continuing concern.
I think that is all I have to say at this time.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: In the course of the meeting this
morning, the new Secretary of HEW, Elliot Richardson, was
introduced. He did not try to solve all the problems this
morning, but he was there and certainly got a warm welcome
for the new responsibilities.
The Postmaster General was present to discuss the
situation involving postal reform. That, of course, probably
will come before the House tomorrow and Thursday, depending,
of course, upon the granting of a rule by the Committee on Rules.
It is not entirely certain that the Rules Committee will act
today and if not, why then postal reform will go over probably
until next week.
The President, the Postmaster General and all of us
are anxious that the House bring the matter up and approve
postal reform so we can start remedying some of the problems in
the Post Office Department.
MORE
- 2 -
Q Senator, you said that this Family Assistance
Plan would be given to us tomorrow. Is there anything
you can tell us about it today?
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't think we can go into many
details today, because it was a matter of much detailed dis-
cussion and it turned on how to remove disincentives from the
program, in other words, how to make the program structurally
work and how to phase it in with other existing programs.
But I don't think it would serve any purpose to go
into detail today. You will have all of that tomorrow.
Q Senator, can you tell us how this provision of
the Cooper-Church Amendment prohibits Asians from helping Asians?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, it would forbid, after June 30,
the furnishing of aid in the form of supplies or funds to any
government which in turn might wish to extend aid to the Cambodian
government. It would put Cambodia in a unique position in
that it would be the only country in the world where such pro-
hibition applies, and therefore, would amend the doctrine under
which Asians, for example the Thai's, might want to help other
Asians. They would be prohibited from doing it under Subsection 3
because the Thai's are receiving some military aid from the
United States.
Q
What are the chances of eliminating that?
SENATOR SCOTT: We have taken no count on that.
Senator Griffin and I, if you lump our two opinions together,
we would have to say about 50-50.
a
Do recent developments in Indochina indicate
that that is what is happening, that there is a movement for
several nations to act together in mutual defense?
SENATOR SCOTT: That, we believe, is a decision for
the Asian nations to make. If they do, we think that
Asians should, under the Nixon doctrine, be permitted to help
other Asians if they wish to do SO. I would assume they do.
Q
Do you have any count yet on the Byrd Amendment,
Senator? Do you know how many votes you will have on that?
You said you thought you had enough.
SENATOR SCOTT: We think we have enough. There are
only about four of five undecided, but I would think in view
of the way these will go that we have enough.
I do call your attention to the Djarkata Conference
as an illustration of the desire of the nations to help themselves.
Q
Would you say the Administration is enthusiastically
behind the Byrd Amendment?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, you have seen the President's
letter to me. It speaks for itself. He has said that it goes
a long way toward removing an important part of his objection. I
don't think there has been any question that he has so indicated
and I would expect he would get a lot of support because of that.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
Ron, what information will we receive here
tomorrow on the Family Assistance Program?
MR. ZIEGLER: As you recall, the Senate Finance
Committee, in the testimony there, requested the Administration,
the Executive Branch, to look at several aspects of the Famlly
Assistance Prggram as it affects Medicaid, Housing and Food Stamps.
We have done that. We have completed a very exhaustive study
of that and are now prepared to begin our discussions again with
the Finance Committee on the Family Assistance Program.
We will provide you the details of this tomorrow
morning here at the White House in a very extensive briefing.
Q
Do you know what time?
MR. ZIEGLER: At the regular 11:00 briefing.
I
Will that be Dr. Moynihan?
MR. ZIEGLER: Perhaps. I am quite sure he would be
one of those who would be here.
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
END
(AT 10:45 A.M. EDT.)
K Send to Hartmann fn Ford
at
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 23, 1970
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:40 A.M. EDT.
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership Meeting this morning
began at 8:30 and ended at about 10:35. Congressman Ford
and Senator Scott are here to discuss it with you.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Thank you, Ron. Ladies and
Gentlemen:
The meeting with the President this morning primarily
involved a briefing on two tentative reorganization messages
that will be sent from the President sometime after the 4th
of July.
I will briefly discuss one of them and Senator
Scott will discuss the other.
One is a proposed pulling together of a number of
various agencies, subagencies that exist around the Federal
Government and will be coordinated under what we will call
the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
It will be the bringing together of these various agencies
that are spread around the Government into an agency under
the Department of Commerce.
It will, for example, undoubtedly include the Sea
Lab Grant Program which is just a small program at the
present time, but one, undoubtedly, as we expand our efforts
in the oceans throughout the world, which will become a
very large agency, something comparable to the Land Grant
College programs, but even substantially greater in research
and otherwise.
This is a step that I think is needed and .necessary
to emphasize the problems we face in the ocean areas and the
related problems thereto. I think there will be support in
the Congress for
reorganization plan of this sort.
Q
Is that the Sea Lab?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Yes, that is part of it.
Q
Can you tell us what some of the other agencies
are?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think at this point we will not
get into the details of it. I think there will be a briefing
sometime probably next week when the plans are finalized.
MORE
- 2 -
0
You say problems we face in the oceans. What
kind of problems are you talking about?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There are a great many people who
believe that the greatest resources on the globe exist in
the ocean. We have not, in the past, spent nearly enough
money in trying to explore the potential that exists for man
as far as the oceans are concerned.
In order to do it properly, I think we have to
pull all of the agencies that have any connection whatsoever
in this area together so we can do it in a sounder way than
we have in the past.
Q
The Navy does a lot of that work. Will you
pull the work out from there?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The Navy is not involved in this
particular transfer, but the other agencies that have connection
with the oceans are.
a What about the atmospheric aspect of this?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: May I let Senator Scott explain
the other one, and then we will take your questions.
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes, Mr. Siciliano called the
NOAA project a sort of wet NASA. That may give you a general
idea.
The other program is the Environmental Protection
Agency, and we were briefed by Mr. John Whitaker. There
are some 84 bureaus that claim some jurisdiction in this field.
It has been described in magazines as an environmental jungle.
But there will be brought together a number of the different
projects affecting air pollution, water pollution, water
quality control type of things, solid waste disposals, pesticides,
from various agencies will be brought under one head, and
when the report comes in that will be itemized.
2
Then you are both talking about the same thing?
SENATOR SOCTT: No, one is the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Agency and the other is the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The President also discussed the 18-year-old vote
and as you know, has always been in favor of the 18 year olds
voting. It is in the Republican platform. I am in favor
of it. I am sure Jerry is, too.
There is this question of Constitutionality. There
was an overriding importance attached to the Scott Voting
Rights Bill which I, needless to say, was delighted to see
approved, and the 18-year-old matter is subject to and can
be, and undoubtedly will be tested in the Courts, and perhaps
we ought to go ahead with a Constitutional amendment in any
event. But there will be a court test, I would think, before the
elections of next year.
MORE
- 3 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Time is of the essence in testing
the Constitutionality. I brought out in my remarks last week,
when the matter was up in the House, that time was important
because there are roughly 3,000 to 4,000 bond issue votes
throughout the country each year involving some $6 billion in
local and municipal and school board elections and programs
and projects in building.
Unless there is a test and a decision before the
first of the year, then many of these bond issues and millage
votes could be placed in jeopardy until there is a decision
by the court.
So, the President said that the proper action would
be taken as quickly as possible within the law to get a test
before the court as rapidly as possible.
Q
Congressman, do you think that Congress will
wait on working on a Constitutional amendment before the
test or will they go ahead as the President suggested and
try to submit a Constitutional amendment?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would hope as back-up that the
House Committee on the Judiciary would move quickly to hold
some hearings and hopefully take some action on the 18-year old
vote amendment to the Federal Constitution.
I think it would be unwise to gamble on what the
court may or may not do. I am for the 18-year old vote. The
President is. The Republican Party, in its platform, has
indicated its approval. I believe the Democrats likewise,
according to the vote, believe in it. So, I see no reason
why we should not do it in the traditional way in order to
make sure that 18-year olds do have the right to vote in the
Presidential election of 1972.
SENATOR SCOTT: I feel the same way, in the Senate
Judiciary Committee and on the Senate Floor about the
Constitutional Amendment. If we can get one, we should.
Q
What is the atmospheric aspect of NOAA?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There are a number of sub-agencies
that get into that particular problem. For example, as I
recollect, the Weather Bureau is presently in the Department
of Commerce. It will be included as a part of this new
agency. That is one example.
Q
Is NOAA going to take in all male and female,
too? (Laughter)
SENATOR SCOTT: There are at least two of every
kind in this new office.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We did have a review of the
legislative program in both the House and the Senate. I
might bring you up to date on the House side. We are in
good shape on appropriations bills. We only have three
out of fourteen yet to pass and one will pass tomorrow.
MORE
- 4 -
There will be a delay in the consideration of the
Defense Department appropriations bill, awaiting the conclusion
of legislative action on the military procurement authoriza-
tion. I might say, in speaking of the military, that the
House of Representatives, if and when the Senate gets the
present bill they are considering over to the House for the
appointment of conferees and the like, I am absolutely
convinced will totally sustain the President's position
that there should be no hamstringing or restricting of his
authority as Commander-in-Chief to meet the many and
difficult potential problems that we, as a nation, face in
our dealings with any enemies, whoever they might be.
The House, I think, is reflecting the views of
the American people who, in my opinion, are supporting the
President in this situation.
Q
Senator Scott, what is the thinking of the
GOP Leadership on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Is there
a change in the thinking at this point?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, I think it has been made clear
in Congress by Republicans and perhaps, I believe the same
thing down here, that the Tonkin Resolution is not relevant
to the foreign policy of this Administration.
It was deemed relevant to another Administration
which was in the process of escalating a war. This Adminis-
tration is in the process of de-escalating. I personally
intend to vote for repeal of the Tonkin Resolution. I
think it is a good time to clear the decks of a lot of these
things and let's get rid of them and go on to something else.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the House of Representatives
would likewise reflect that view. If the repeal is added to
the legislation they are discussing now and comes to the House,
I would strongly favor the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution. We ought to clear the decks. As Senator Scott
says, the Tonkin Resolution has no relevancy to the foreign
policy of this Administration. It is obsolete and it ought
to be cleaned off the statute books.
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
END
(AT 10:50 A.M. EDT.)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date July 7, 1970
TO:
Jerry Ford
FROM: William E. Timmons
Please Handle
For Your Information XX
Other
Rec.
FORD :- LIBRARY
8:50 ecam am
7/8/70
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 7, 1970
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:55 A.M. EDT.
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership Meeting this morning
lasted from 8:35 until 10:45. Congressman Ford will begin
the briefing this morning.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We had an extensive briefing
this morning by Dr. Paul McCracken and others as to the
situation facing the country from the economy point of
view. The news was encouraging.
The point was made that we were in a period of
transition from a wartime economy with inflation to one of
peace, hopefully, and, at the same time, we were doing it
without any recession and achieving, hopefully, relative
price stability.
At the same time in the discussion we talked about
the legislative program that the President mentioned in his
economic report. There were five or six specific legislative
proposals that the President indicated were absolutely
essential if we were to go from this wartime economy to a
peacetime economy.
One, improved unemployment compensation legislation.
This Congress has not taken final action on this important
legislation. It is apparently languishing in a conference,
or there is no action from the conference, after the House
and Senate have passed the bill.
There is an eight-month lag in the necessary
Emergency Housing legislation.
There has been relatively little legislative
action on the highly important Manpower Training legislation.
Thirdly, the President had recommended improved
Social Security legislation. The House has passed it to
give an increase in the cost-of-living benefit to the
30 million social security recipients. No action has been
taken in the Senate.
There has been no action of any material benefit
in the area of Occupational Safety legislation.
It seems to us, I believe, that the Congress can
be legitimately blamed for not acting affirmatively quickly
enough on these important legislative proposals which, if
law today, would help this transition from a wartime economy
MORE
- 2 -
to a peacetime economy.
SENATOR SCOTT: Had the Housing Bill been acted
upon early instead of an eight-month delay, the
$250 million involved would have been expanded into
$6 billion available for new housing starts. We under-
stand that the money is there, that the business
community is prepared to take care of these starts if
Congress will enact the Housing Bill.
The transitional period in the fight on
inflation is working. The wholesale price index is now
markedly down, from 5.4 percent in the fourth quarter
of last year, to 1.4 percent this year. The retail
price index as normally expected should follow that down
with the resulting easing in the cost of consumer goods.
The policies, in other words, are beginning to work.
The Administration has noted a paragraph in
Fortune magazine, which seems to summarize what is going
on. That paragraph says, "It seems clear that without
either stumbling into a deep recession or renewing the
inflationary boom, the Nation is successfully negotiating
a massive redeployment of priorities and resources from an
economy based on defense and business investment to one
directed more towards consumption, housing, and social
welfare."
Q
Senator, would you repeat that figure of
$200 million, did you say, that would release $6 billion?
SENATOR SCOTT: $250 million in the Housing Bill
would release $6 billion in the business community to make
it available for housing starts.
Q
Would you explain that to those of us who
can't conceive of things in those large figures?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, by now you should be able
to -- you have been here under the Democrats long enough --
from what we are paying for in the decade of the spend-
thrift 60's.
The amount which is made available by Congress
results in lending much larger sums of money for the
purchase of homes for mortgage loans and for extension of
credit, for construction, for ownership and, therefore,
it expands by that geometrical proportion.
I don't have a chart to show you exactly how
a given $10,000 expands into a $50,000 house or $60,000
house, but anybody who bought one knows that is the way
it works.
Q
Senator, how long do you expect this
transition period to last?
SENATOR SCOTT: I would say it is turning now.
It is definitely improving. The situation should become
more and more obvious with each passing month. I think by
the end of this second quarter, and as you enter the third
quarter, you will notice more and more improvement.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
What is the expectation of the unemploy-
ment rate? Did Dr. McCracken give you any idea on that?
SENATOR SCOTT: He discussed it, but as an
economist he said he did not undertake to make a specific
prediction. The intent is to keep it stabilized as
closely as possible.
The status of the Housing Bill, I believe,
is that it is in conference.
Q
What was that wholesale rate again?
SENATOR SCOTT: The wholesale rate, fourth
quarter 1969, 5.4 percent; in the first quarter of
1970, 5.3 percent; in the second quarter of 1970, a
drastic reduction to 1.4 percent.
Q
That is rate of increase?
SENATOR SCOTT: That is the annual rate of
increase in the wholesale price index. What you draw
from it is that wholesale prices of raw materials have
been declining.
I think you might expect that the overall GNP
price index in the second quarter may be a bit lower than
the first, also.
Q
Sir, having concluded that Congress can
legitimately be blamed for a good deal of this, did you
come across any method of speeding up what Congress does?
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes, some of these things we
are doing and saying now will speed them up. For example,
at a recent press conference here in the White House,
Gerald Ford and I pointed out with some acerbity the
delay in crime legislation.
You will notice the House acted immediately after
that on one of the most important of the crime control
bills.
I would like to point out that some of them are
still being unconscionably held up, in my view. We are
keeping the heat on that. I would like to suggest now
that the Family Assistance plan ought to receive more
attention in the Senate Finance Committee because the
House has passed' it. It is highly desirable legislation.
It is a complete reform of the welfare system and a
Democratic Congress ought to act to bring that bill
out, too.
Yes, when the leadership mentions these things
in both Houses, we find an instant defensive reaction on
the part of the Democratic majorities and shortly there-
after you begin to see some action.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I might add on that particular
point that the best evidence lately was the criticism that
was, I think, appropriately leveled at the Chairman of the
Committee on Banking and Currency in the House who
literally sat on this Emergency Housing legislation for
MORE
- 4 -
too long a time and when we started to criticize the
delay and the tardiness it was within a week or so
programmed and passed by the House.
I hope and trust that the prodding we are
giving today will expedite the consideration of this
legislation in the conference. I understand they are
having a conference on Thursday.
I believe the demand by the public is such that
if we prod them we will get some action out of that
conference right away. Otherwise, it will languish
and hang there for too long a time. A little criticism
in this case has been very meaningful and very productive.
Q
Senator Scott, how do the Republicans
stack up on the Family Assistance program?
SENATOR SCOTT: I would be pretty certain that
a very substantial majority of Republicans will support
it.
Q There is one report that it is blocked in
the Senate by the Republicans on the Senate Finance
Committee, the Family Assistance plan. Have you any
report on that?
SENATOR SCOTT: It sounds like a Democratic
rumor to me. Whose ever fault it is it ought to get
out. But he Finance Committee is controlled by a
majority of the Democrats. I have never found them
having any trouble getting a bill out if they really
want it.
Q Mr. Ford, did the President mention the
need to keep appropriations in line with his requests?
Did he say that he would veto any appropriation bills
that were not in line?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The President did bring up
the problem of the Congress appropriating or authorizing
more money than he had requested in his budget. He
pointed out that if this trend continues, it will be very
harmful in his attempt to win the battle against
inflation.
He didn't forecast any additional vetoes,
but he did very specifically say that this Congress, if
it continues to appropriate and authorize more money
than he has requested, the problems of inflation will
multiply rather than be brought under control.
Q
Was any estimate made of the budget
deficit that would result from this trend continuing?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, no specifics, but
certainly the implication was there, that if this spend-
thrift Congress under the Democrats continues to
appropriate and authorize more money than he has
requested, and particularly if they include these
mandatory spending provisions, certainly the deficit will
be more than was anticipated and more than was desirable.
MORE
- 5 -
SENATOR SCOTT: The President made the point
on the short form deficit that that is due to the reduced
income coming in rather than to the spending recommend-
ations of the Administration. They have kept the lid on
spending down here. There has been a reduction in income.
Q But you are talking about the $1.3 billion
deficit, I take it, and not the reported $10 billion that
it could result in?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion of
any figure of that magnitude. The figure was in relation-
ship to the $1.3 billion or $1.2 billion.
SENATOR SCOTT: I would hope the $10 billion
estimate could be related more to drug abuse than to
facts, personally.
Q
Did the President join the leadership in
putting the blame on Congress?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There is no question that
the President was very firm in his condemnation that this
Congress on several occasions has gone above his budget
figure, and he felt that if this trend continued or
magnified, it certainly would be a contributing factor
to the problems of inflation.
Some of us believe that if this Democratic
Congress continues in too many areas to be a spendthrift
Congress, it will be a very legitimate political campaign
issue in 1970.
Q
Mr. Ford, if you haven't already discussed
it, would you tell us whether you think the House will
hold to its previous version on Postal Reform?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I believe the Postal Reform
legislation will be sent to conference this afternoon.
There will be, as I understand it, an effort made to
instruct the House conferees to insist upon the House
version, particularly in the so-called right-to-work
provision. I believe there will be bipartisan vote to
insist upon that retention in the bill.
Q
Mr. Scott, what do you think will happen
then?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, Sarah, to tell you the
truth, I was talking to Mr. Ziegler and I did not hear
your question. Would you be good enough to repeat it?
Q
If the House sustains its previous action
on the right to work and postal reform, what do you think
the Senate conferees will do?
SENATOR SCOTT: I would hope the Senate
conferees would do what the Senate did, in my personal
opinion.
By the way, what I was talking about was to
continue to plug for the Bicentennial. That is why my
attention wandered. I want to express my appreciation
MORE
- 6 -
for the favorable trend that seems to be taking toward
Philadelphia, the greatest of all American cities, as the
focal point of the exposition.
Q
Was there any discussion of foreign policy
at all this morning?
SENATOR SCOTT: None.
Q
Sir, did the Republican leadership in the
House and Senate support the Republican nominee in
Virginia?
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes. As far as the Senate was
concerned, I am sure the Republican Senators would welcome
any accession to their ranks. I have not met delegate
Garland but he is coming up this week to meet, hopefully,
his future Republican colleagues.
We would certainly support all Republican
nominees throughout the country and welcome the additions
to our ranks.
Q
Since you were good enough to open up the
Bicentennial, did the President tell you over breakfast
whether he is going to accept the Commission's report and
recommend the exposition to be put into Philadelphia?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think Ron can answer that
better than I can. I can tell you that I did discuss
it with the President and I feel very good about it.
Have you any idea when it will occur, Ron?
Sometime soon, is that right?
MR. ZIEGLER: Exactly what I was going to say.
Q
In the report by Dr. McCracken and others
on the economy, what expectation were you given on the
consumer price index for the rest of this year?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The feeling was that with the
tremendous improvement in the wholesale price index rise
relating the last quarter of 1969 and the first quarter
of 1970 to the second quarter of 1970, that the prospects
were that instead of the six percent in 1969 for the
consumer price index, it would be far lower, but no specific
figure was given.
THE PRESS: Thank you very much.
END
(AT 11:10 A.M. EDT.)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 11, 1970
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:46 A.M. EDT
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership Meeting this morning
began at 8:40 and ended at 10:40.
Senator Scott.
SENATOR SCOTT: Ladies and gentlemen:
Among the things considered was the record of Congress
and the Administration in certain areas and notably in the
reform measures which this Administration has recommended and
which have been acted on, the extension and reform of unemployment
insurance, postal reform, draft reform, for example.
There was full discussion of the President's consider-
ation of the various bills pending before him. He consulted
all of us there on those matters as he has been considering
them at Camp David and here in the course of making up his mind.
As I said yesterday on the floor of the Senate,
there is a connection between the SALT talks and the Military
Procurement bill, and in my judgment, it is most important
that the Senate support the Administration and Armed Services
Committee's recommendation with regard to ABM and we will take
up other matters as they come along.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We also discussed the legislation
that the House passed that fits into the President's reform
package. The House has passed a good farm bill. The House has
passed a good family assistance program. And the House has
passed a good maritime bill.
And it is important from the point of view of the
country, the Administration, and the Congress that affirmative
action be taken on all three of these bills in the Senate
as quickly as possible.
As Senator Scott indicated, there was considerable
discussion, give and take between those in the Executive
Branch and the Congress on the President's decision on whether
or not to veto one or more bills, particularly the two
appropriations bills that when you total up that amount over and
above his budget recommendations, the figure is $1 billion.
MORE
-2-
As Senator Scott said, this matter had been discussed
in depth at the meeting at Camp David over the weekend and we
spent the better part of two hours with members of the House
and Senate making their recommendations and suggestions.
The thing that bothers all of us is that the Congress has
appropriated in these two bills nearly $1 billion more than what
the President recommended. And the Congress apparently is in the
mood to put a ceiling on the Executive Branch, but none on its
own actions.
For that reason, I reiterate that if these two bills
are indicative, the one for education and the one for independent
offices in HUD, the Congress can be legitimately categorized as
a spendthrift Congress.
SENATOR SCOTT: I might add that we do expect early
action on the farm bill. There is a possibility that the Senate
may take the House bill unchanged or relatively unchanged.
The President made the point very strongly that he
is most anxious to get the Family Assistance Plan out of the
Senate Finance Committee and enacted in this Congress. He regards
it as an essential part of his reform program.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I might add that yesterday Represen-
tative Frank Bow and myself, along with a number of the House
Republican leaders and a number of the members of the Committee on
Appropriations on our side, did introduce a new ceiling proposal
that had been basically put together by the Executive Branch, but
modified to some extent by ourselves. It would take the budget
ceiling of $205 billion 600 million and that would be the ceiling
except for uncontrollables.
It would say anything appropriated by the Congress over
that figure would have to be reduced in a formula way. It would
also wipe out any mandatory expenditure provisions in any other law.
We hope that we can put this on the supplemental in the
House, which will probably come some time in late September or
around the first of October.
SENATOR SCOTT: We expect the same bill to be intro-
duced in the Senate today, perhaps by Senator Williams and
probably co-sponsored by myself and several other Senators.
Q
Did the President indicate whether he was going
to veto the education bill?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no definite decision
indicated at the meeting this morning.
Q
What about the housing bill?
MORE
-3-
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The same on that. The President
is taking a look at this $1 billion package over and above
his budget and there was no clear indication after a two-hour
discussion as to whether he was going to or not going to veto
one or both of those bills.
Q
Mr. Ford, did anyone suggest he should veto
the education bill?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I said, there were a number of
suggestions on both bills. Some wanted a veto and some did not.
I would not want to identify the individual who made the specific
recommendations.
Q
But some did recommend a veto of the education
bill?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Yes.
SENATOR SCOTT: Everybody there, I think, had a
comment on these various bills which are before the President.
Q
Senator, did anyone in the room recommend the
President sign the education bill without identifying those
people?
SENATOR SCOTT: As Gerry has said, there were
recommendations both ways on each of these bills. The President
pretty well went around the table and got everybody's viewpoint
and we had the impression that he is still in the process of
making up his mind.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think the point can also be made
that many members were sympathetic to the programs in both the
education bill as well as in the Independent Offices HUD bill.
But when you look at a $1 billion package over and above a
President's budget and the ramifications and implications when we
are trying to win the battle against inflation and a responsible
fiscal policy in the Federal Government is a part of that battle,
if a decision is made to veto one or both of these bills, it
will be on the basis of a responsible fiscal policy, not an
indication of opposition to many of the good programs in both
bills.
SENATOR SCOTT: And an increase in the Federal budget
is sure to be reflected as an increase in the family budget of
every American family. That is the reason for the necessity
for some ceiling on the Congress, as well as a ceiling on the
Executive.
Q
How does this $205.6 billion compare with the
last ceiling and was that effective? The last ceiling was
what, $195 billion?
MORE
-4-
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I believe that figure of $195
billion is the figure that was included in the legislation.
But that ceiling was really of no consequence because it
didn't put a ceiling on what the House and the Senate might
do.
Every time a new appropriation bill went through over
and above the President's budget, which was $196 billion,
then the ceiling went up automatically.
So it in effect was a meaninglass ceiling. For
that reason we put $205.6 billion and say that is it, except
for some uncontrollables, interest on the national debt,
et cetera. But it says that if the Congress goes above
that ceiling, then there has been a formula reduction and it
also removes the mandatory spending provision.
Q
The President doesn't have to spend money except
when it is made mandatory and this would repeal all the mandatory
provisions in the appropriation bills. Is that correct?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: In all the appropriation bills and
in all of the authorization bills. It would be a clean sweep
across the whole spectrum of legislation and would knock
out all or any of the mandatory spending provisions in any law
at the present time.
Q
Would that include mandatory formula grant
programs?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I said it is all-encompassing,
across the board, categorical grants, et cetera. It would totally
eliminate mandatory spending provisions.
Q
Congressman Ford, you talk as though the battle
against inflation is continuing to rage, or whatever. I thought
that it was about over from what other Administration officials
have told us.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: My own impression, Pete, is that
we are making significant headway in the battle against
inflation. In the last several months, the cost of living
has gone up around 4.5 percent per annum or thereabouts instead
of over 6 percent as it was in 1969.
We are making the kind of headway that is going to
be meaningful. But when you are about to score a touchdown,
I don't think you want to fumble the ball. And for that
reason, we are trying to continue to act responsibly in the
fiscal sense by the kind of action the President may take on
some of these apprpriation bills.
We just have to be responsible fiscally, if we are
going to not only win the battle against inflation, but also
make sure we have a sound economy to provide jobs.
Q
Senator Scott, did you report to the President
on what the outlook is for tomorrow on the ABM vote?
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes. I indicated that we felt that
MORE
-5-
the Administration position would prevail and that the amendment
would not carry.
Q
I wonder whether any other topics came up,
because, Senator Scott, you met the other day with Clarence
Mitchell and I know Congressman Ford's interest in Supreme
Court Justice Douglas. Did anything else come up in there?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, they didn't discuss my remark about
holding within blue line, if that is what you mean.
Q
On a broader base, did anything come up?
SENATOR SCOTT: Not on that. There was a wide-
ranging general discussion on the bills pending before the
President; references to these reform measures, to the
Family Assistance Plan, suggestions made as to some possible
future legislative programs that are still too inchoate
for discussion, but there was discussion on some of the things
the Administration may be doing in the future.
Q
Senator Scott, you were quoted yesterday as
saying that only you stand as a barrier between the"southern
strategy' and the people legislatively. What do you mean by
that?
SENATOR SCOTT: Just about what I said. But I think
maybe the "only" was a little presumptuous on my part. At
least my views are well known and have been for 27 years and
I will stand on them.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 11:00 A.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 22, 1970
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:55 A.M.
EDT
MR. ZIEGLER: The meeting this morning began at
eight o'clock and lasted until 10:45. Congressman Ford
and Senator Scott are here to discuss the meeting with you.
First, Congressman Ford.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Good morning.
The subjects were two in number, primarily. The
first I will discuss. It involves legislation which the
Administration has recommended which is at the very present
time being considered in the House Committee on the Judiciary,
to provide a means by which the Federal Government can move
in on college and university campuses where Federal funds
are involved to take precautionary action and seek criminal
indictments against those who use bombs or other incendiaries
to destroy property and to injure individuals.
Some interesting statistics were made available by
Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, who cited the following facts: For
example, the SDS in the last academic year, in one way or
another, threw bombs or other incendiaries on college
campuses, created incidents of about 500-plus, resulting
in almost 500 personal injuries.
This provision will be added to the House version
of the Organized Crime Act. There is no doubt whatsoever
that the House Committee on the Judiciary will approve
this provision as an addition to the House version of
S. 30. It is badly needed legislation. It will give
the FBI and the Federal authorities the opportunity to
move in immediately, not on an advisory or secondary basis,
but on an initial basis.
We feel where there is a bombing, where there is
the use of other incendiaries, at a federally-financed
institution, the Federal Government has a responsibility to
move and to move quickly.
SENATOR SCOTT: The legislation, of course, is
directed toward federally-assisted institutions which, of
course, includes federally-assisted personnel at the
institutions.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is now meeting on
crime legislation. They may also discuss this morning the
same proposals.
MORE
- 2 -
The President took personal action to recommend,
while Mr. J. Edgar Hoover was present, the addition of
1,000 new FBI agents, the purpose of which will be to
implement the new crime legislation, and to assist in the
anti-hijacking measures as well.
Mr. Hoover again very strongly did not want to
have it thought of as any national police force. These
are simply to take care of any legislation Congress sends
down, including, among others, the items I mentioned,
and it will come up in a supplemental appropriations bill,
the message for which will go up this afternoon.
This is not directed against any organization or
any group particularly, this crime legislation, but it is
simply a matter of controlling outbreaks of violence and
doing something about them.
Q
Would you clear up where that legislation is?
Has it passed the Senate and is now before the House,
S. 30?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: S. 30 passed the Senate, I
think in January of this year. It has been unfortunately
languishing in the House Committee on the Judiciary. It
is now about to be reported by the House Committee on the
Judiciary.
As an added feature there will be this anti-
bombing legislation recommended by the President and now
this new proposal which I just described to give the
Federal authorities the right to move in at a federally-
financed institution where there is evidence of arson, the
use of incendiaries or bombing.
This legislation will be approved either today
or tomorrow by the House Committee on the Judiciary. Mr.
McCulloch, who is taking the initiative in this, indicated
that within a week, at the most two weeks, that legislation
would be on the floor of the House. I am sure it will be
approved.
Q
Are most U. S. colleges and universities
federally-assisted? Is that the case?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I can't give you the number,
but I can cite, for example, because I noticed the figures
just the other day, that the University of Michigan, my
alma mater, is about fourth on the list and received
approximately $63 million in either the last fiscal year
or the last academic year, I am not sure which.
I believe in one of the recent issues of U. S.
News & World Report there was a long, long list of colleges
and universities that have received substantial sums from
the Federal Government. Those institutions will come under
the jurisdiction of this legislation so the Department of
Justice and the FBI can move in immediately where there is
an instance of bombing or the use of other incendiaries.
0
Congressman Ford, most colleges actually
receive some form of Government subsidies. For example,
for the building of dormitories. Does that mean that any
MORE
- 3 -
college campus where there is some form of violence and
where there is a subsidy in the building of dormitories
or any other form of Federal funds, will be eligible for
this kind of protection?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Wherever Federal funds go to
a college or university, an institution of higher learning,
involving not only structures but research, grants to
departments or individuals within a department. That
university or that college would qualify for Federal inter-
vention where there is a bombing, where there is the
utilization of an incendiary of one sort or another.
This is important because of the capability of
the FBI and the Department of Justice to move perhaps more
quickly where there is the destruction of property or the
injury to individuals by the use of bombs or other
incendiaries.
SENATOR SCOTT: It doesn't go to all forms of
violence necessarily. It will be pointed toward bombing,
arson and terrorist actions of that kind.
C.
Congressman Ford or Senator Scott, I just
want it clear on this: Will the FBI and the Department of
Justice come in at the invitation of the college authorities
or will they automatically come in because there are Federal
funds in that school?
The other thing is will they come in after the
overt act has been done, the bombing or the incendiaries
accomplished, or will they be there to watch out for plots
that are hatching before they occur?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Where there is Federal funding
as I have described, and where there is an overt act, the
use of incendiaries, but primarily bombs, then there is
an immediate Federal jurisdiction and the Federal authorities
have the right to take the initiative regardless of local
authorities.
Q
Mr. Ford, the FBI apparently, according to
their own statements, are not using undercover agents as
students, having the appearance of students, on campuses.
Under the circumstances of this type of legislation, would
you suggest that it might behoove the FBI to employ such
people to learn of possible bomb plots coming up?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't think the FBI should
change its policy in this regard.
Q
Senator, will that supplemental message
going up this afternoon include other items besides the
additional FBI agents?
SENATOR SCOTT: I understand there are several
items in the supplemental. I believe SO. I am not aware
of what they are.
Q
How much money is involved, do you know?
SENATOR SCOTT: I believe some figure for the
remainder of fiscal '71 is in the neighborhood of
$14.1 million and for the full year of fiscal '72,
MORE
- 4 -
approximately $23 million. I think it is $22.9 million.
2
Congressman Ford, you referred to some
statistics that were provided by J. Edgar Hoover concerning
SDS involvement in 500 incidents on campuses.
Did he mention what he was considering an incident?
Was this a bombing, incendiary or arson case, or was it just
some students throwing rocks?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: From the notes that I have,
in the last academic year, the SDS was directly involved in
247 cases of arson, and they were involved in 462 cases of
personal injury on college campuses.
There were approximately 300 other incidents that
involved the destruction of facilities or property on
various college campuses at the instigation or involvement
of SDS.
Q
On those 462 cases of personal injury, are
they directly related to arsons or bombings, or are they
just beatings?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: My best recollection is that
they were involved with arson, bombings, et cetera. I could
not be absolute and categorical about it.
Ω Mr. Ford, wouldn't it be adequate for the
FBI to intervene under this type of legislation to allege
a conspiracy is being formed on the campus to undertake
a bombing?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would strongly disagree
with that. As a practicing lawyer, to prove a conspiracy
is much more difficult.
Q
Is that precluded by this legislation?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I can't recall whether the
conspiracy portion is included or not. But we all know
that it is most difficult to prove a conspiracy.
What we are seeking to do is to take an overt
act, a bombing or the use of an incendiary, on a college
campus where the Federal Government has provided funds in
one way or another, and this is a crime that can be proved.
I think the Congress will approve it. I think
it will have a beneficial impact.
I
Would past overt acts on any of these
campuses be the predicate for this type of intervention?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: You can't have ex post facto
legislation.
2
You are only providing for a trigger,
though?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We are providing for legislation
that can be utilized in the future against the organizations
MORE
- 5 -
or individuals that commit these crimes of violence.
Q
Does that include most of the college
campuses in the United States?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think most institutions
in one way or another do receive Federal funding. I know
of very few that have refused such Federal assistance.
Q
Where did this idea initiate?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The Attorney General was at
the meeting this morning, and I believe that this legislation
is the outgrowth of a deep concern in the Department of
Justice.
The Attorney General spoke up and described it.
J. Edgar Hoover was there for the purpose of citing the
facts that in the past would justify such action. I would
say that this is a recommendation of the President and the
Department of Justice, and I hope the Congress will pass it
on a bipartisan basis.
MORE
- 6 -
Q Were there any recommendations from the
colleges or universities? Was there any report on their
attitude?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion of
that.
SENATOR SCOTT: To answer your question, it will be
part of a new Title XI in the new Crime Bill.
Or Is this a new proposal today? Is this what
we are getting?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: This proposal that we have been
describing today is a new proposal which is in addition to
the anti-explosives, anti-bombing bill that was anticipated
would be added to S. 30, but this is an additional feature
that I think recent facts justify, such as the tragic
bombing and the loss of life at the University of Wisconsin
campus at Madison, Wisconsin.
O Congressman Ford, this might be hopefully
academic, but in view of the stories that are coming out
about FBI performance on he campus at Orangeburg, who
is going to review the services that are performed under
this sort of an act by the FBI?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The FBI will not get into any
overt acts until such an act has taken place. Their
performance in handling these kind of matters, in my
opinion, is an excellent one. I have no fear but that they
will handle themselves very properly.
Q If a college administrator asks them to leave
the campus, should they leave?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Not if there has been a
bombing. Not if there has been the use of an incendiary.
Not if there has been the destruction of property. Not
if the institution receives federal funds.
2 Congressman, will there be hearings on this?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: You will have to ask Chairman
Celler and Congressman McCulloch. I just don't know. The
matter is being considered, as I understand it, right in the
committee at the present time. There certainly will be ample
opportunity for discussion on the Floor of the House when
the legislation gets to the floor.
Q Wouldn't you think that Congress would like to
hear the opinions of administrators of colleges around the
country?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't believe that where
federal funds are involved and there has been the use of a
bomb or an incendiary, where buildings are destroyed and
lives are lost or injuries result, that any American,
a college president or anyone else, would be reluctant
to apprehend and try those who are allegedly involved.
MORE
- 7 -
Or Mr. Ford, in his Law Day speech in
Detroit in 1969, the Attorney General, if I recall
correctly, indicated that this sort of thing should really
be left to the local police and urged college administrators
to call local police. Is this just a failure, that
local police have been unable to contain this sort of thing
and investigate properly?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think that the statistics that
the FBI will be releasing very shortly indicate that
because of the increased tempo, number and seriousness,
that there has to be federal legislation of this kind
rather than to leave it to the local authorities.
SENATOR SCOTT: The President made it clear that
in the first instance the responsibility for maintenance
of order is on the college presidents and the college
administrators. This kind of violence is something which may
be beyond the purview of normal precautions.
I Senator Scott, would you favor hearings on
this to find out how college administrators feel about it?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think if college administrators
want to be heard they could designate a spokesman and
arrangements could be made in one House or another for
them to be heard.
Q Senator Scott, do you believe this kind of
thing will lead to more or less violence on the part
of those students who are prone to violence?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think that the use of preventive
measures and the use of the FBI in the event of an
overt action should serve to diminish violence. But I
think in the first place an orderly campus is the
responsibility of the campus administrators.
Q How many FBI agents do we have currently?
SENATOR SCOTT: 7,000, I believe.
Q Senator Scott, you said this was aimed at
bombings, incendiaries and other acts of terrorism. Is
there anything in addition to bombings and arson that
we are talking about?
SENATOR SCOTT: You are not talking about rock
throwing, for example.
Q But what is included in other acts of
terrorism?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, the legislation has not
been drafted yet. I can only say that the throwing of
rocks and broken glass, for example, would not be
included.
Q How about gunfire?
SENATOR SCOTT: The general intent is to control
MORE
- 8 -
bombing and arson. Whether the legislation includes gunfire
will depend on whether the House Judiciary Committee inserts
that language.
Q
Did you discuss the Middle East today?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, the President gave us a
briefing on it, brought us up to date. We are satisfied
from that that he is on top of the situation and is handling
it judiciously and responsibly.
I
On the anti-bombing feature, what is new in
that? What will be done by the Judiciary Committee on the
separate anti-bombing, anti-crime? You mentioned the two
proposals.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: For the last week the Subcommittee
Number Five of the Committee on the Judiciary has been putting
together the House version of S. 30. There isn't very much
different from what the Senate passed and the House
version to date. They are, right now, adding_ the anti-bombing
legislation, the broad anti-bombing legislation, recommended
by the Administration, and they are incorporating in it this
provision that we have been discussing this morning.
Ω
Senator, just where does the Middle East
situation stand? Would you characterize the President's
briefing?
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't think it is necessary to
characterize the President's briefing. I would say what he
told us indicates that he is prepared to preserve the proper
interests of the United States, and he told us what was being
done. As I said, I think it ought to suffice that we are
satisfied that he is on top of the situation. I would rather
not go into details. It is a very touchy situation. I don't
think we ought to go further.
Q
What do you mean preserve the proper interests?
Do you mean at the point of intervention?
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't think I would want to go
into that. I certainly wouldn't indicate by refusing to
go in that it was even considered.
O
Did the President give any indication that he
plans to keep his trip to the Mediterranean on schedule?
SENATOR SCOTT: It wasn't brought up at all.
Q
Were you briefed by Secretary Rogers and
Secretary Laird or only by the President?
SENATOR SCOTT: Only in this instance by the
President.
2
How do you feel about the situation over
there?
SENATOR SCOTT: I would say parlous.
Q
Gentlemen, I remain a little confused on the
distinction between precautionary Federal intervention and
MORE
- 9 -
intervention after an overt act. Is there some distinction
there? Could they move in ahead?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As I understand the legislation,
the Federal Government will not move in in advance. They
only move in when there has been the use of a bomb or some
other incendiary at an institution that is the beneficiary
of Federal funds. There is no authority given under this
proposed legislation for them to move in in advance of an
overt act.
Q
If a college administrator requested them
to move in in advance of an act, could they, under this
legislation?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't think there would be
any authority under this legislation for them to move in
under those circumstances.
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
END
(AT 11:15 A.M. EDT)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 17, 1970
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 9:55 A.M. EST
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership Meeting this morning
began shortly after eight o'clock. The leaders met with the
President for an hour and a half. Congressman Ford gave a
report on the House and Senator Scott gave a report on the
Senate.
Congressman Ford.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Good morning.
As Mr. Ziegler announced, we had a very thorough
discussion of the legislative situation in this lame duck
session. Some might categorize it as a ruptured duck session.
It seems to me that there are a good many things that have to
be done. I hope we can accomplish more than what appears on
the surface might be achieved.
The things that are absolutely essential, of course,
are the six undone appropriation bills. Only two have not
passed the House: The Independent Offices HUD appropriation
bill, which was vetoed and sustained, and the Supplemental
Appropriation Bill, which is, of course, the last thing that
comes before the House.
Then, we have a Federal Highway Act, the Housing
Bill, a trade bill, an Occupational Safety Bill, a Manpower
Training Bill and then a number of the other legislative
proposals which were submitted over the last several years
by the President that are in various stages of consideration.
But the overall record so far is somewhat disappointing.
I hope that in the remaining weeks of this session we can
speed up and expedite the consideration of the things that are
absolutely essential, plus as much as we can of the President's
program.
It is my judgment that the earliest adjournment
would be the 15th and the more likely date is somewhere
around the 22nd or 23rd of December.
SENATOR SCOTT: I agree with Jerry's estimate of
adjournment.
MORE
-2-
Senator Mansfield said yesterday at his caucus
as far as they were concerned the present convening is
regarded solely as a windup and urges, and I agree, that the
Administration and the Congress concur in putting over
those things that cannot be done in this time reasonably to
the next Congress. However, I have, of course, gone over with
Mike the so-called rock bottom wish list, you might say.
Obviously, the most important matters are the six
appropriation bills that he and I have come to an agreement on --
the legislation -- which we will do our best to get through
and past experience would indicate some of these will be
casualties and will nevertheless go over.
But we are naturally, and the President naturally is
anxious to have action on the Family Assistance Plan, Social
Security and an acceptable trade bill. And we are urging
action by the Judiciary Committee on the Obscene Advertising
Bill and, of course, we hope the hijacking taxing authority
willbe passed.
There will probably be a vote on the veto on the
TV bill. If we can get other matters through, we will.
Over in the House, the Emergency School Aid is an
extremely important matter to furnish the funds for completion
of integration. And I hope that that can be acted on.
2
Senator Scott, did you give the President any
prediction on the possibility of overriding his veto on the TV
bill?
SENATOR SCOTT: We told him that a whip count is
in progress and we expect to have a better reading later today.
I think myself that the bill should be vetoed. It is
discriminatory in applying only to a part of the media and does
not seem to me to be a particularly fair bill.
I hope that we can sustain a veto and we will certainly
make every effort to do that in the Senate.
Q
What about you, Mr. Ford? How do you feel about
that?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I voted for the bill twice in the
House when it was before us. I admit that it is a bill that is
deficient in many respects. On the other hand, it can be called
a step in the right direction.
The urgency of overall review and improvement in our
legislation involving expenditures and receipts and limitations,
I think, is highlighted by the problem we face. And the next
Congress, in my judgment, has a major responsibility to review
and revise and update the Corrupt Practices Act that really
hasn't had any consideration by the Congress for almost
half a century.
MORE
-3-
Q
Senator Scott, what do you mean by an acceptable
trade bill and specifically, did the President indicate whether
he would veto a bill if it came before him with shoe quotas in it?
SENATOR SCOTT: There was no statement or discussion
about a veto of the trade bill. There was a broad general
discussion of the bill and it is well known that the President's
views are well known with regard as to why there should be
quotas on textiles.
I spoke yesterday of the necessity for the Senate
exercising some restraint and it would be better if we could
have a trade bill that was not loaded down with Christmas
tree proposals.
We will try to see whether that can be done.
I
Did you gentlemen discuss the next session or
did the President outline in any way his thoughts about
legislative proposals in the next session?
SENATOR SCOTT: That wasn't the purpose of the meeting
and was not discussed.
Q
Did you discuss the recent election?
SENATOR SCOTT: No. That has been pretty well discussed
since the 3rd. It was not a subject for discussion this morning.
Q
What is the outlook on Family Assistance?
SENATOR SCOTT: Uncertain at this point, because the
committee has not yet acted on whether to add it to the Social
Security Bill, or report it independently. It may come before
us in the form of a test plan. It may there be converted
into the substantive proposal which the President has asked
for. This is truly one of the most innovative proposals made
in many years and that is what we would like to have. Time
may not permit it.
THE PRESS: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
END
(AT 10:03 A.M. EST)
Rep. Ford-
Fyl
WILLIAM E. TIMMONS
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
- B.T.
THE WHITE HOUSE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DECEMBER 1, 1970
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE BRIEFING ROOM
AT 10:19 A.M. EST
MR. ZIEGLER: The Leadership Meeting this morning began
at 8:15 and ended at about ten minutes after ten.
Senator Scott, and Congressman Ford are here to give
you a general report on that meeting.
Senator Scott.
SENATOR SCOTT: The meeting was a discussion of the
extra session and the agenda and in the Senate the President
supports, as you know, and is anxious to have action on the
Social Security bill.
The Trade Bill somewhat in the House form -- that is,
with textiles, without shoes and he would like to see the
BISC and the American selling price included -- but he would
like a bill substantially similar with those comments to the
House bill and, of course, is still very much in support of
the Family Assistance Plan, the substantive bill.
And Senator Griffin and I have indicated that we
will do all we can to get these three measures out in the time
remaining. And we expect to pass the appropriations bills and
perhaps some consumer legislation.
The outlook for some of the other things is cloudy
for the extra session, but we will be in session again, it is
expected, on January 20, subject to the approval of the Speaker
and the House leadership.
Q
Senator, did you say he would like a bill
substantially like the House bill on trade?
SENATOR SCOTT: What he sent up to the House is the
bill he would like and I said, therefore, that that would be
the textile feature, not the shoes, and the retention of
certain items which were tentatively dropped in the Senate
committee.
Q
What do you think is the chance of getting that
kind of a bill?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think it is a reasonable chance.
MORE
-2-
Q
How about the oil provision?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, it was not discussed per se
this morning. So, I have no new comment on it.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Another item on the agenda was
the President's request for the military assistance authorization
and funding. The prospects are encouraging in the House that
we will get both the authorization, pretty much like the
authorization the President recommended, and the appropriations
that would coincide.
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs is meeting
today and this week and we hope that a bill will come out
which will be programmed on the House floor. And in addition,
the House Committee on Appropriations will undoubtedly make its
recommendations for the funding of the President's request.
This is a vitally important part of our overall foreign policy
if we are going to carry out Vietnamization or deAmericanization
in Southeast Asia.
If we are to continue the kind of a role that I think
we have to play in the Middle East, it is vitally important
that the necessary funds be made available for Israel and
for Jordan.
I believe that the House will measure up to its
responsibilities and pass both an authorization and an
appropriation bill to help the Administration implement its
overall Nixon policy as far as Southeast Asia and the Middle
East are concerned.
SENATOR SCOTT: And I would like to add that I would
hope that the Senate would then act affirmatively. It seems
to me the continued orderly withdrawal of American troops
depends upon our providing that kind of support which the
President has indicated is essential in his Message.
So, for all those who really do want the withdrawal
of American forces as rapidly as possible, it would seem to
me that the sane thing to do would be to support this bill.
Q
What do you think are the chances, Senator?
SENATOR SCOTT: It depends on the timing. If we
can get it over from the House quickly enough, we would
have about an even chance of getting it through. It also
depends on how much obstructionism arises in the Senate.
I would hope that we would treat it responsibly.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I should add a feature that is
vitally important.
As you well know, the President asked for additional
funds for Southeast Asia, plus the money for the Middle East,
the $500 million for Israel and the additional funds for Jordan.
The President feels that this is a package that ought
to be considered as a whole and not separable.
MORE
-3-
If we are to implement the policy world-wide, the funds
have to be in a package so that he can implement it both in
the Middle East, as well as in Southeast Asia and a division
of the program would be a handicap and not liked as far as
the Administration is concerned.
Q
Senator Scott, on the Trade Bill, I get the
impression that the President supports the measure as it came
out of the Senate Finance Committee yesterday.
SENATOR SCOTT: No, he supports the measure which he
originally sent to the House. And that was the measure which
contained certain provisions pertaining to textiles and the
D.I.S.C. provisions and the American selling price.
There have been some changes made in the Senate
committee which have not met with the approval of the White House.
Q But you say he substantially supports the measure
as approved by the House.
SENATOR SCOTT: With the exceptions I noted, yes. I
mentioned the ones which were not particularly additions. I
restated that the President does favor the bill he sent up
originally and that would be the best guideline.
Q Did he indicate he might veto anything less
than that or more than that?
SENATOR SCOTT: He said nothing about veto whatever,
one way or another. That was left entirely up to the future.
Q Senator, did you discuss the economy?
SENATOR SCOTT: Only very generally. Mr. Ziegler
will have a statement pertaining to a matter of inflation,
of nflation lert, following this session with Congressman
Ford and myself. And we discussed that matter briefly.
Q
Did you discuss Sontay or the Lithuanian seaman?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President is very much concerned
about the matter of the Lithuanian seaman and has ordered a
thorough investigation of that. We did not discuss Sontay,
I suspect because there would probably have been total and
unanimous agreement that what was done there was right. And
I would be sure it had support. It wasn't necessary to discuss
it.
Q
Senator, yesterday a couple of Congressmen
called for Congressional investigations concerning the
Lithuanian seaman. Was this brought up?
SENATOR SCOTT: It was not brought up in that context,
but the President is very much concerned about it and has
ordered an investigation. So, if that is what the Congressmen
want, that is what they are getting.
MORE
-4-
Q
Do you think that the President should have had
better information and sooner?
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't think it is possible for me
to answer that at all. I don't imagine that the President
can manage to be on every vessel that is plying, the high
seas. That is part of the difficulty, I suppose.
Q
Senator, and Mr. Ford, was there any discussion
of ways in which the Congress could support the President's
Inflation Alert statement today?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion on what
the Congress could do. I think it is generally known that the
President feels that the Congress should be more responsible in
a fiscal way. That would be an affirmative action that the
Congress could take that would be helpful in the battle against
inflation.
Q
Was there any talk about the upcoming budget in
that context?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There was no discussion of the
upcoming budget in that context.
Q
Do you agree with Senator Aiken, Senator Scott,
that there should be more consultation with the Senate when
the President is planning foreign policy moves or major military
moves?
SENATOR SCOTT: Senator Aiken's speech was very thoughtful
and had a lot of common sense in it, as I have told him. And I
am sure that the Senators and the President would agree that
so far as time permits, there ought to be continuing consultation
and there is a great deal of that. And, of course, the more
consultation there is on foreign policy between the Senate and
the Executive, probably the better for the country.
But my feeling is that that is going on.
Q
Did you discuss campaign spending reform, especially
this bill that Representative Anderson has said he will
introduce?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, not directly. I had intended to.
There wasn't time. But I am working on a bill and I have been
in touch with the counsel for the Republican and Democratic
National Committees, both. I talked to Joe Califano yesterday
and earlier to Fred Scribner and we are discussion it with
foundations and groups and others and I am going to talk
to Congressman Anderson about his bill.
Then I will have a comprehensive bill introduced
either at the end of this session or more likely the beginning
of the next one.
MORE
-5-
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I might add on that point, that
since 1965, the House Republican Policy Committee has
repeatedly endorsed campaign expenditure reform, legislation
that was initiated in 1965 and 1966 by the late Congressman
Glenn Lipscomb. That proposal and those that were introduced
in subsequent Congresses had the endorsement of the Republican
Policy Committee in the House.
We have been roadblocked in the House in the last
six years by a failure on the part of the House Administration
Committee to act and then on one other occasion, I think, the
matter never got out of the Rules Committee.
So, we in the House, on our side, have been pushing
for six years to get a complete and total reform of campaign
expenditure legislation. I hope that in the next Congress
the Democrats will cooperate in some way to get a comprehensive
review and change in the basic campaign expenditure legislation.
MORE
-6-
SENATOR SCOTT: I personally believe that the only
way we are going to get this legislation is through a
bipartisan approach. That is why I was talking to Joe
Califano.
I believe that if we can get a bipartisan
approach whereby both parties recognize the entirely
unsatisfactory present system whereby much too much
money is solicited and spent, much too much talk occurs
and the campaigns run entirely too long and reform is
desperately needed.
The way to get it, however, I believe is for
full bipartisan cooperation.
Q
Senator Scott, was there any discussion of
personnel changes in the Nixon Administration?
SENATOR SCOTT: Nothing, no. We hear some rumors,
but nothing in the meeting. (Laughter) No. I hesitated
because anything that happened occurred after the meeting
and Jerry and I engaged in some rumors. But we don't
really know anything.
Q
Senator Scott, I believe that Senator
Mansfield has indicated that they will split off the
Israeli aid request because the funds are already authorized.
Are you trying now to block this?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am trying to make it clear that
it would be better for all the countries involved, Korea,
Israel and all the others, if this bill could be kept
indivisible and if the Congress would act on the entire
implementation suggested in the President's foreign policy
in the Middle East and in the Far East.
And I would hope that that is done. I don't
want to project what might happen if it is separated.
But it really would be better for all concerned if it is
kept together.
Q
Can you stop the separation?
SENATOR SCOTT: Only time will tell that. It
would be far better if we don't have it, because we want
this money for Israel as soon as we can get it. And I
would hate to see anything happen that delayed any part
of this program.
Q
Did you people discuss a Republican National
Chairman?
SENATOR SCOTT: No. We just congratulated
Morton on being relieved of the burdens of his office.
Q
Who is going to be the next chairman?
SENATOR SCOTT: We have not been advised that the
National Committee has any candidate as yet, nor have
any names been brought out in this meeting here.
MORE
-7-
And as you know, the National Committee would have
to convene. Some name would be suggested to them, I am
sure.
I myself have a feeling that a full-time national
chairman would be a good thing. But this is a personal
opinion resulting from my own experience in the office
where it is difficult to be in the Congress and national
chairman at the same time. I believe in a full-time
chairman.
Q
Have you got any candidate?
SENATOR SCOTT: None that I want to ventilate
right now.
MR. ZIEGLER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:33 A.M. EST)