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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1551030
label
White House - Congressional Leadership Meeting, 4/12/72 (includes Ford notes)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1551030
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
White House - Congressional Leadership Meeting, 4/12/72 (includes Ford notes)
citationUrl
collections
Robert T. Hartmann Papers
House of Representatives Subject Files
subjects
Legislation
Legislative liaison
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Peace negotiations
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1551030
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1972-04-30
month
4
year
1972
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1972-04-01
month
4
year
1972
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0350d11c20286781
ocrText
These documents were scanned from Box 107 of the Robert T. Hartmann Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 12, 1972
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
FORD OF LIBRARY CERALI
THE BRIEFING ROOM
10:35 A.M. EST
MR. ZIEGLER: The leadership meeting this morning
lasted for about two hours. There was discussion on the
situation in South Vietnam, and also discussion about domestic
matters.
Senator Scott and Congressman Ford are here to
tell you about the meeting. Congressman Ford.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The major share of the time was
taken up with a full and complete briefing on the situation
in Vietnam and related matters. There was unanimity among
the Republican leaders who were present, and they indicated
also from their trips and travels throughout the country
that there was a strong support for the President's action
as far as Vietnam is concerned.
We discussed at some length the President's action
as far as air power and sea power are concerned. I think it was
fully supported because one, it permits the continued with-
drawal of our forces, as the President has done under Viet-
namization, and the continued withdrawal under these circum-
stances, using air and sea power, proves the effectiveness of
the Vietnamization program.
Secondly, the use of air and sea power was supported
unanimously, because it does protect the lives of the Ameri-
cans who are still there.
And thirdly, this air and sea power utilization by
the United States prevents a takeover of the Government of
South Vietnam by Communist forces from the North.
I was impressed with the effectiveness, and I was
also very, very optimistic because of the attitude of the
leadership as a whole in supporting these actions for these
reasons.
SENATOR SCOTT: I think it is of significance that
the reports from General Abrams, Admiral Moorer and others, and
those in the field indicate that the South Vietnamese are doing
very well in resisting this invasion from the North.
There is no evidence of civilian support, in the
South, of the invaders, and it is a massive invasion of South
Vietnam by North Vietnam, with support of the most modern
styles of weaponry.
MORE
- 2 -
As regards the support in the South, there is
already considerable evidence of Buddhist support, neutral
groups rallying to the government. The population appears to
be overwhelmingly in support of South Vietnam, and it is also
true, in my judgment, that the American people are supporting
the President's position, the American position, namely, that
our negotiating record is good, our track record is good,
our readiness to negotiate whenever there is anything to
negotiate is good, and we are at all times prepared to
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
negotiate whenever there is something negotiable.
So I think the entire American position is good,
the military position likewise is good, and the air and naval
support is a matter for the judgment of the President, as
Commander-in-Chief, and the exercise of it is, of course,
occasioned by the necessity to protect the withdrawal of
American forces. That withdrawal schedule is continuing and
is even, I believe, slightly ahead of schedule.
Q
Senator Scott, on this negotiating position
that you mentioned, did the President have any reaction to
the French Government's request that the United States now
return to the negotiating table in Paris?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, there was no reaction on that
specific suggestion. The feeling that I have, and I am sure
Gerry Ford has, is that our negotiating track record is good;
that we will negotiate whenever there is anything to negotiate;
and that the responsibility is on the part of North Vietnam.
They have violated the DMZ, contrary to the conditions set
down by President Johnson and by Secretary Clifford at the time
of the bombing halt.
It is North Vietnam which is at fault. It is North
Vietnam which makes it impossible to proceed to the negotiating
table. They know what it takes to bring us to the table.
They know what it takes to negotiate, and any time they are
ready to move, there will be movement.
Q What does it take, Senator Scott? We have been
told here at the White House -- that same phrase is used
here -- that the other side knows perfectly well what will
get the United States to the negotiating table. Why can't we
know what will get us there?
SENATOR SCOTT: The other side is well informed of
the conditions under which negotiation could proceed, and those
conditions have been stated by our representatives, by
Ambassador Porter. We will have some further statement to
make before long, and at that time there will be some clari-
fication, if you don't already have it. But the details of
negotiation are not for us to discuss.
Q Senator, was there any explanation of how you
send American ground combat troops out of base camps into
territory which is strongly held by the enemy and this does
not constitute engaging these troops in ground combat?
SENATOR SCOTT: There was no such discussion, but
I can say that you can see yourself the casualty figures,
you can see American ground forces are not, in fact, engaged,
and you can see that we are continuing with the withdrawal of
forces.
MORE
- 3 -
Some of the stories in the press would indicate that
a great many situations are occurring which our
briefings do not support. I can say that.
Q
What specifically do you mean there, Senator?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, I would have to reveal
some of the briefings.
But there are indications of
allegedly desperate situations in certain areas and towns,
and the briefing does not indicate that these situations, in
point of fact, exist.
Q
What are you saying then, Senator, that the
press is lying about what is happening in Vietnam?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am saying, as sometimes happens
with politicians and press, that they are not always fully
informed.
Q
Are you saying your briefers are politicians?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, I am saying they are fully
informed.
Q
Can you inform us on what is happening?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am not free to reveal confi-
dential briefings.
FORD a LIBRARY GERALD
Q
The enemy seems to know what is going on.
Why can't we know?
SENATOR SCOTT: That is the most ancient question
in the books, I guess, that the enemy knows something and the
American press should know it. I can't quite go along with
that. The enemy's intelligence is devoted to finding out what
it can, and so, I take it, is the press intelligence, but we
are not free to tell you what we know and the enemy knows, if
I knew it, because it would not help the security of U.S.
forces. I would not expect you to endanger the security of
U.S. forces, and I am sure you won't.
Q
Without endangering anybody's security, just
how wide is the gap between your briefers' concept of what is
happening in certain areas and what the press is saying? Is
it very wide?
SENATOR SCOTT: I didn't undertake to use a slide
rule on the width of the gap. I am simply saying that there are
some statements I have read in the press, when we have asked
the briefers, we are informed these conditions do not, in
fact, exist. Conditions in the press indicate distress or
pressure on certain localities, and the briefing would indicate
that that pressure as described by the press is not there.
I am not saying the press is lying. I am saying the
press is often unable to get at all the facts; that you
speculate as well as you can; and that you use such information
as you have, but that the press is perfectly free to discuss
the fact that politicians are not always fully informed, and
therefore, I think it is equally fair and proper to point out
that the press is not always fully informed.
MORE
- 4 -
Q
Senator, can you say, will this be a White
House statement that is coming soon on our negotiating position?
Will it come from here or Paris?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think Ambassador Porter will
have something to say.
Q
Do you know when?
SENATOR SCOTT: I do not. Mr. Ziegler probably knows.
Q
Both of you talked about the withdrawal of
American forces at a time when ground combat troops or ground
troops may be coming out, but there are more airmen and naval
forces sent to the area. How do you reconcile that? Does
this reflect the feeling that ground forces are a political
issue and air and naval forces are not?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, it does not. The assumption is
that the United States Government is obliged to do what is
necessary, as the President has many times announced, to pro-
tect the withdrawal of American forces, and that when you have
an open and overt invasion of a country, which does endanger
the security of American forces, the United States will use
such air and naval forces as may be necessary to protect our
own security.
Q
Senator, did the President say when he would
make his next withdrawal announcement?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, he did not.
FORD R. GERALO LIBRANT
Q
Did he indicate whether he will, in fact,
announce another reduction in U.S. forces in Vietnam?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think he put it in this con-
tdxt: that he is always prepared, prior to the date of the
previous withdrawal, to analyze the situation, and sometime
before May 1, but there has never been a commitment in pre-
vious withdrawals that one would automatically follow. But the
commitment to get down to 69,000, in contrast to 544,000 that
we had at the time President Nixon took over, is a good track
record, and I believe that the use of air and sea power is
essential to protect the 69,000 who will be there on May 1.
It is important to make sure, also, that we can get
down to 69,000.
I
Are you saying he is not going to make another
withdrawal announcement?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, I am not. I didn't say that.
I
He will make an announcement, but he won't
announce an immediate withdrawal?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: He has made no decision on that
on this occasion, as he never did on previous announcements
when he did announce a withdrawal.
I You are saying, though, that we shouldn't
assume there will automatically be another withdrawal?
MORE
- 5 -
CONGRESSMAN FORD: There never has been in the past,
and the situation will be analyzed when we get down to the
commitment of 69,000, in contrast to 544,000 under the
previous Administration.
Q
There has, indeed, been continuous withdrawal
on each of the announcements. Each involved another withdrawal.
Are you suggesting now that we should not expect that
necessarily the announcement before May 1 will contain another
withdrawal, as all the previous ones have?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't think you can assume
anything at this point.
SENATOR SCOTT: The withdrawals are continuing,
and to the best of my knowledge, and to the best of my
judgment, will continue. Suitable announcements will be made
at the President's discretion.
The continuance of the use of air and naval forces
for the protection of the security of American troops in the
process of withdrawal will continue in such a character as the
President, himself, will determine, and has frequently so
advised the American people, and it has been made necessary
by the violation of the DMZ, contrary to the warnings of
President Johnson and Secretary Clifford, the warnings of
the President himself. Therefore, I would think and believe
that the American people want our forces protected, and that
is exactly what the President is doing.
Q
Do you foresee the use of air power and
naval power into perpetuity to maintain what you call
FORD R. GERALD LIBRARY
Vietnamization?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't think so, because we do
hope, through negotiations on the one hand, it will be ended.
Secondly, I think it is interesting to point out that at the
present time approximately 50 percent of the air sorties are
presently being conducted by South Vietnamese. This is in
contrast to what it was three or four years ago. Their
capability in the months ahead will increase substantially.
What they will do to protect themselves against
this invasion and against subsequent invasions by the
North Vietnamese will have to be predicated on the circumstances.
Q
Senator Scott, both you and Congressman Ford
have said that there is a widespread support for this whole
increased air and naval campaign in the country, or for the
President's actions. On what specific indexes do you base
that assessment, Mr. Ford?
SENATOR SCOTT: I go back to what the late Bruce
Barton used to say, and that was, "Never overestimate the
information of the American people, and never underestimate
their intelligence." I think they are able to think for
themselves. They read what is written for them to think, they
make their own judgments on it as to how they evaluate it,
and the evidence of numerous surveys, and every Congressman
and Senator is a walking Gallup Poll. We go home and find
out what the reaction is. We go to gatherings in Washington,
and I would say on the basis of all of these elements, there
is overwhelming support for what the President is doing.
MORE
- 6 -
There has been for quite a while, and generally the
American people rally to the President whenever there is evi-
dence of an overt invasion by an aggressor against forces of
the United States in the field, and they do affect the security
of our forces, even though we are not actually committed to
ground combat.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I would be more specific from
my own experience in the last 10 days or so, since the Presi-
dent has been using air and sea power to interfere with the
invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam.
I have been in California, Colorado and Michigan,
and there is support for the President's use of air and sea
power to protect American lives, on the one hand, and to con-
tinue withdrawals on the other hand. At the meeting this
morning, we had 15 or 20 members of the leadership, and the
statement was made that there was this support publicly
throughout the country; there wasn't the disintegration in 1972
as there was in 1968, and as a result, our position is a far
stronger one.
The American people know this kind of military action
is essential to give the South Vietnamese an opportunity to
defend themselves against the invasion from the North.
Q
Who actually briefed you today --- Dr. Kissinger?
SENATOR SCOTT: Dr. Kissinger, and, of course, the
President had comments, naturally, and the overwhelming impact
of the points made, I think, is, among other things, that with-
drawal is continuing and that the President will make such
announcements as he feels are in the interest of our own forces
and there is no question of the continuance of the withdrawal.
I would think any stories that would indicate we are not with-
drawing or not continuing withdrawal would be off the mark.
Q
Beyond May 1?
Q
You say there should be no question of our
continuing withdrawal. Are you referring to our continuing
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
withdrawal up to May 1, or beyond that?
SENATOR SCOTT: I thought I made it clear. I tried
four times, Now I am going to turn it over to Mr. Ziegler,
and you can ask him. If you are not satisfied with him, I
will come back.
MR. ZIEGLER: I think the point to make is the one we
have made in briefings previously. Senator Scott has said
the withdrawal program which was previously announced will be
reached. That is 69,000.
Q
By May 1.
MR. ZIEGLER: By May 1, yes. We have said the
President will have another announcement before May 1 regarding
the Vietnamization and withdrawal program. The Senator has
pointed out to you that we are doing what is necessary to
assist the South Vietnamese to thwart the invasion of the
North Vietnamese into the South.
MORE
- 7 -
We are taking these steps to protect U.S. forces.
We are taking these steps to see that the withdrawal pro-
gram continues, and in order to do that, we are going to do
what is necessary in terms of air power and naval fire power
to assist the South Vietnamese.
As you know, as before the previous announcements, we
are not going to pre-judge decisions that the President
has not made yet. He has not made the decision regarding
the next withdrawal announcement. He will make that decision
based upon the circumstances that exist at that time.
Now, I know you gentlemen are driven to the question,
"What will the announcement be on May 1?" and all I can tell
you is the decision is not made yet. It will depend on the
circumstances that exist then. But the policy of withdrawal
remains as previously stated, and the position that we find
ourselves in at this moment regarding the next announcement is
the same position we found ourselves in about three or four
weeks before the last announcement, when the President made
the announcement regarding this particular withdrawal period
that we are concluding at this time.
Q
You will agree the military situation is a
little different now than it was then, so the situation is
not exactly the same.
MR. ZIEGLER: There is no question about the fact
that the South Vietnamese were not facing an invasion from
the North at the time of the last announcement. The point I
am making is that we are taking the steps we are taking in
terms of air power and sea power to assist the South Viet-
namese in thwarting the invasion so that our policy can con-
tinue. That is one of the objectives.
GERALD LEGARY R. FORD
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think there is another point
that ought to be made on that, though. When the President
started his withdrawal program as a consequence of the Viet-
namization program, casualties, American loss of life, was up
around 300 a week. It is now down to 10 or less per week. So
the circumstances today are far, far better from the point of
view of the United States and our forces there.
The military situation three years ago, with 500,000-
some American troops there was far more serious, from our
point of view, than it is today.
Q All we are trying to pin down is whether there
is a possibility there might be no further troop withdrawals
announced before May 1.
SENATOR SCOTT: All that I am able to say, obviously,
is that we do not know what the President will say on May 1.
We have no way of knowing. We know there is a policy. We
know that the policy has been adhered to. We have no way of
knowing what the President will say on May 1. Therefore, we
cannot help you on that.
I
But there is a possibility that there will be
no further troop withdrawals?
SENATOR SCOTT: I cannot say that.
MORE
- 8 -
MR. ZIEGLER: I think the point is, based upon the
remarks that we have given to you, and based upon the assess-
ment of the situation as it is now, that it would be in-
correct for you to draw conclusions one way or the other as to
what the President will do, and I know you are driven to the
desire to draw conclusions one way or the other.
I
We don't want to draw false conclusions.
MR. ZIEGLER: I don't want you to draw a false con-
clusion. That is why I say don't attempt to draw conclusions
as to what the President might say on May 1.
Q
With every past announcement, we have been
assured there would be a withdrawal, and the only question was
the size of them, Senator or Congressman, and now I would
like to know if that possibility has now widened to the possi-
bility there won't be any announcement.
SENATOR SCOTT: The difficulty of our attemtping to
answer further is that we enter into a speculation with you
on a subject as to which neither of us has any information,
and I think it is just not productive. I cannot tell you. I
have said as clearly as I can that the policy of withdrawal
will continue.
What the President says on the 1st of May is, of
course, entirely within his discretion. I doubt very much if
he has written that statement out yet. We have no way of
knowing whether he has come to that conclusion.
Q
Is it correct, then, that there was nothing in
this briefing to indicate that the President, indeed, will
announce another troop reduction by May 1?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: And there was no comment to the
fact that he wouldn't.
FORD R. GERALD LIBRARY
Q Is that right?
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes. I don't think it would be
at all proper to draw either inference from this, because it
was not raised in that context. The President will make the
statement in due course, and that statement will presumably be
in line with his continuing policy, but specifically what he
will say I cannot tell you.
Q
Can you say that he is considering the next
troop cut situation?
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't see, Helen, how we can
say any more. I am concerned that you may think we are in
some way evading. The only answer is, we honestly do not
know, and I would like somebody to believe me when I say I
do not know. I have an awful lot of people on the Hill who
are willing to believe that.
I
Can I ask you a question about your China trip
that you met with the President about yesterday?
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes.
MORE
- 9 -
I
Do you plan to discuss with the leaders over
there the three Americans who have been held there for five
or six years or more?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think in fairness to me -- Ron has
said something to me -- and in fairness to them, I think I
ought not to answer that question. We were briefed by the
President, Mike Mansfield and myself, for about an hour and
a quarter yesterday, and the content of that briefing, of
course, is confidential.
Of course, we will convey certain oral expressions
of good will to those Chinese leaders whom we see. We will
accept such opportunities as they give us to explore any
matters of mutual interest. We will not at this time hazard a
guess as to what all those subjects would comprise, but we
hope to find a means to widen communication and improve
relations with the People's Republic of China.
We do look forward to this trip as an opportunity
to give some indication that the Shanghai communique is bearing
fruit.
Q
Did the ITT case come up this morning, Senator
SENATOR SCOTT: No. That is a no-no.
7004817 GERALD R. FORD
Q
Congressman Ford, to clarify an earlier answer
you gave, when you said in your travels you found support for
the increased air actions and the President's actions here on
this invasion, were you referring to political gatherings, were
you referring to polls? What were you referring to?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: My travels and the meetings I
attended were primarily nonpolitical, and I read considerable,
in those three States, local news accounts, the editorial
comments, and the contrast was very vivid, comparing 1972, the
present time, with, for example, 1968 when there was a dis-
integration of American public support for the kind of military
actions we were taking.
Today, at least my impression is, out in the hustings,
that there is strong support for the President's air and sea
power use, because they know it means the continuation of a
withdrawal commitment, and they know that the use of air and sea
power protects American lives of those who are still there.
There is no evidence at all, comparable to 1968, at the pre-
sent time, of a loss of faith, or a lack of support for the
President at the present time.
Q
What do you mean by "nonpolitical gatherings"
as an example?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Well, I attended a meeting, for
example, yesterday of an attempt on the part of many community
leaders to expedite and expand our "Bond A Month" U.S. Savings
Bond program. I talked with a good many of them out there, and
there was no criticism and, in fact, some volunteered strong
support.
Another reflection is the mail, and in contrast to
1968, the mail today doesn't condemn what we are doing with
air and sea power, because the people know our overall objec-
tives of withdrawal are different from what they were in 1968.
MORE
- 10 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I have had opportunities in
Pennsylvania and Virginia, and by telephone conversation
with Georgia, to pick up reactions in those States, and
I will give you an illustration. Last night I attended
the Oxford-Cambridge Annual Boat Race Dinner, which is
certainly composed of the elite types, generally, around
town -- British and American -- a great majority of whom
would surely, normally, be critical of the President, and
I heard not one word of criticism throughout a four and a
half hour evening, in which the general feeling of these
extremely bright and overly cultivated ladies and gentlemen
was all favorable.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I might add one other comment.
Congressman Bill Minshall was at the meeting this morning.
He is the ranking Republican on the Defense Appropriations
Committee, and he passed to the President, and I saw it on
route, his poll, and it showed that with 25,000 people
responding, 76 percent supported the way President Nixon
was handling the problems and the military difficulties
in Vietnam. I think 21 percent opposed. But that is
a very high public support.
Q
How does that contrast with the period of the
Cambodia invasion?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It is almost 100 percent different.
There were many, many criticisms at the time of the invasion
of Cambodia, criticisms for the wrong reasons, but nevertheless,
criticisms. Today you don't have that. Today the American
people know why American air and sea power is being used.
I
Was there concern expressed for Vietnamese
lives being lost in the South and North, I mean, in the
sense that the war ought to stop and they ought to negotiate?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Well, there was complete
unanimity that we want to negotiate. But when you have an
invasion of enemy forces, I think it is 11 or 12 divisions
from the North into the South, of course tragically
civilians are losing their lives, losing their property,
losing their livelihood. We don't like that.
GERALD FORD LIBHANY
SENATOR SCOTT: I think the American people have
deplored for many years the casualties on both sides in the
Vietnam war, but I see very strong evidence that they
know who is to blame, unlike some of the politicians who
hassel the hustings abominably and eternally.
The general public reaction is simply that the
enemy is invading a country overtly and casualties are
resulting. They would like to see it ending. They aren't
asking us to surrender to the enemy and they aren't listening
to the people advocating that.
I
Are you convinced that Vietnam will not be
a major issue in the election campaign this year?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am convinced some people, in my
judgment who are ill-advised, will seek to make the wrong
issues out of Vietnam, and they will live to regret it.
Generally speaking, it will not be the first or major issue.
MORE
- 11 -
Q
Do you know of any National politicians who are
advocating surrender to the enemy?
SENATOR SCOTT: If you don't by now, I suggest
you go back to the files of your newspapers.
Q
I don't, not by now, so could you refresh my
memory?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think I would rather not accommodate
you by making a personal charge here against any particular
politicians. But I have read -- and if you haven't, I have
an excellent optometrist to recommend -- for several years
of people who have said, "Why don't we accept Hanoi's
terms, get out of the war and withdraw unilaterlly?"
Unilateral withdrawal is surrender. I will stand
on that.
Q
You are leaving it to us to make this personal
charge?
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes, I am, I am leaving it to you.
Q
Why are you reluctant to do so?
SENATOR SCOTT: Because I think the record speaks
for itself. There have been ever so many statements pub-
lished, many of them published in the press, in this area,
to the effect that this particular speaker or that one has
advocated a unilateral withdrawal or withdrawal forthwith
or withdrawal immediately or withdrawal without conditions
or withdrawal under any circumstances which will permit
FORD A. GERALO LIBRARY
withdrawal. Those are all in the area of a surrender to
the other side. I stand on the word surrender.
Q
Haven't we been withdrawing for three years?
SENATOR SCOTT: Yes, but not without conditions and
not on the basis that we accept the demand of Hanoi, which
is to substitute a government of their choosing for a
government of the choosing of the people of South Vietnam.
Q Hasn't our withdrawal been unilateral? Has
Hanoi withdrawn its troops as well?
SENATOR SCOTT: Our withdrawal to the extent to
which it has continued, has been made in spite of the
refusal of Hanoi to withdraw, but we have retained the right
to use air and naval forces, and therefore our position is
that we will withdraw all forces bilaterally or multilaterally,
if you prefer, at any time Hanoi is willing to do SO.
Q
In this briefing, did you receive any overall
assessment you can relay to us on the position of the
South Vietnamese forces and and prognosis on how this
invasion is going to come out? Is it going to be repulsed
or what is the outlook?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I might comment on that. We have
had briefings on the Hill from top military leaders and we
certainly had the best kind of briefing today.
MORE
- 12 -
My general impression from the overall briefings,
the ones I have described, is that we are confident, we
think the South Vietnamese will be able to meet the challenge
of the invasion from the North with the help and assistance
of U.S. air and sea power.
Q
Senator Scott, Senator Sam Ervin is quoted
as saying that he is prepared to filibuster against the
Kleindienst nomination if Peter Flanigan does not in fact
testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I wonder if that has caused you to reassess the
possibility of Mr. Kleindienst being confirmed?
SENATOR SCOTT: I have made no reassessment. I
think Senator Ervin is quite capable of speaking for himself,
and has done so, and I think we will just leave it where it
is and see what happens.
Q
Do you have any advice for the White House as
to whether or not they should have Mr. Flanigan testify?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am not in the position of offering
unsolicited advice. We will see what happens.
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
Q
Ron, is there anything you can tell us on the
Porter announcement?
MR. ZIEGLER: The point I believe the Senator was
making is that the Ambassador to the Paris talks would, at
some point, be speaking to that subject. I don't have anything
more to give you.
Q
He said soon, Ron.
GERALD A. FORD LIBHANY
MR. ZIEGLER: Well, soon.
Q
Is he going to go back and answer the French
government's request?
MR. ZIEGLER: Bob, I don't think you should relate
what Senator Scott said to the French government's request.
I think the proper perspective to put the comments in
regarding Ambassador Porter is our Ambassador to the Paris
talks will be having something to say on the talks fairly soon.
Now he will be returning to Paris, as we have
told you before, relatively soon, perhaps as early as the
next day or SO. But I don't want to say specifically at
this time when the Ambassador will have something to say,
but it will be soon, perhaps within the next few days.
Q
Ron, I missed the early part of this. Will
he be speaking here or in Paris?
MR. ZIEGLER: No, I would assume that any comments
that the Ambassador would make would be after he returns
to Paris.
MORE
- 13 -
Q
Was he there today, Ron, per chance?
MR. ZIEGLER: He was not at the Leadership Meeting.
Q
He will discuss the resumption of the talks?
MR. ZIEGLER: I don't suggest that to you, nor do
I think that Senator Scott was suggesting that to you. I
believe the point -- indeed, I know the point -- that
Senator Scott was making is that you can expect Ambassador
Porter, the Ambassador to the talks, to be conveying
the United States' position regarding the Paris peace
talks, as we have been doing from here and from the State
Department and from this Government, and I believe our
position on those talks is very clear.
The position that Senator Scott articulated this
morning, and that we have made clear before, is that the
appeal is going to the wrong place. The appeal regarding
negotiation should go to the North Vietnamese. We
have said that before and we feel that.
2
You are saying there will be nothing new
in whatever Ambassador Porter says?
MR. ZIEGLER: I am not going to say what Ambassador
Porter may say before he says it, but you can expect that
he is not going to move away from the United States' policy.
I don't believe you would expect that.
2
Have we conveyed that to the French government?
MR. ZIEGLER: We have conveyed nothing to the
French government. Our position on the negotiations is
clear and I talked about this Saturday in Florida. There
is being an effort made by the North Vietnamese and by
their propoganda process, to divert attention from the failure
on their part to negotiate instead of using military means
to accomplish their objectives, and you know full well they
are invading the South. You know full well that they built
up supplies and they were preparing for this invasion at the
very time when they knew full well there was a negotiating
solution available to be talked about, and they chose not
to accept that.
You know our position. Our position is we are
ready for serious negotiations. They apparently aren't.
Q
Are we going to have another 11:00 briefing?
MR. ZIEGLER: Jerry will be out in a moment, yes.
THE PRESS: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
END
(AT 11:15 A.M. EST.)
FORD OC VEHALO LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
4/12/72
NUN-
of our 1954 DM2 accord
2]
"
bombing
no longer a Civil War- an
mission of & outh Victnam
GERALD
BRARY
Equipment - NVN - bigger tarks
9 longer range gars.
Fighting - all ground fighting
who ATTACK
2 by 50uth Vietnam
succeding
Differences between now of TET SVN
43% fall acr sorties by SUN
VC fighting - now NUN.
80% by americans fall
DECLASSIFIED
B.O. 12958, Sec. 3.5
NSC Memo, 11/24/98, State Dept. Guidelines
By KBA . NARA, Date 3/23/00
[Photo copied from Ford Scrap books,
Box 14, White House Meeting
Notes, 1969-72]
THE WHITE HOUSE
2
One Issue 1 will 4. 5 put
a Commust that in control
of S.V.
will we join an energy
of abandon a friend
Only issue - political
hang-up hang - up
Reason for ATTACK
1
ovarthom Sugar
Hope confuder
goot. SUN must succul
2
Turmoril in 45
panic us. We must
star Troy
GEPAID
3
Chang
Negotiation
We made repeated
overtunes.
THE WHITE HOUSE
3
Quote - "understanding"
ZBJ , Taths can't continued
with DMZ violated
clifford - DM2 must be recogned
Harreman-
Somet Union support
Massine Invision - not a
Quevensed guerilla action air an a Ala power
To make certain invorm which
is supportal by Soint Union
South W ill not negotiate - a surrender /greater then
VN fighting very will
THE WHITE HOUSE
4
of fail - possibly 7 Pence greater
RN - taking sale responsibility
creditity of u.s. freeyn policy.
/ hose who got us in WA R are
solating our afforts to get out
Blatant Imasine with
support of Sourct Union mdem winnows
commettments the 4.5. will
If we deshor nen
1020 is LIBRARY CLINTO
bard no Credibitity
Calm 4 determened- -
not day to day stores how
it all comes out.
THE WHITE HOUSE
5
Why U.S. anyrower /Reapmon
1) Continue u.s. withdrawal
2) Protect u.s. forces
69, 69,000
The gun,
3) prevent "take-over"
by comminist forces
by an enemy invasion.
RED z LIBRARY
nuder Wispons
1). not necessary
2) "
We will to what is necessary. 20r
will not lose.
67
NIXON- VIETNAM
BY GAYLORD SHAW
WASHINGTON (AP)-REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS EMERGED FROM A
TWO-HOUR MEETING WITH PRESIDENT NIXON TODAY AND SAID "WE HONESTLY
DON'T "T KNOW" WHETHER NIXON WILL CONTINUE WITHDRAWAL OF U.S. FORCES
XROM VIETNAM AFTER ,AY 1.
SENATE GOP LEADER HUGH SCOTT OF PENNSYLVANIA ALSO SAID AMBASSADOR
WILLIAM J. PORTER, CHIEF U.S. NEGOTIATOR IN THE SUSPENDED PARIS
LONG." PEACE TALKS, WOULD HAVE A STATEMENT ON THE NEGOTIATIONS 'DEFORE
WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY RONALD L. ZIEGLER SAID PORTER
"IS NOT GOING TO NOVE AWAY FROM UNITED STATES POLICY." HE AGAIN
WCCUSED THE COMMUNISTS OF FAILING TO SHOW AN INTEREST IN SERIOUS
NEGOTIATIONS.
NIXON HAS SAID HE WILL MAKE ANOTHER ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING
WITHDRAWALS BY MAY 1. ACCORDING TO HIS TIMETABLE, U.S. TROOP
STRENGTH IN VIETNAM WILL BE AT 69,000 MEN ON THAT DATE.
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER GERALD FORD, OF MICHIGAN, ONE OF 20
CONGRESS MEMBERS ATTENDING THE MEETING IN THE CABINET ROOM, REPORTED
THAT NIXON HAS MADE NO DECISION ON WHETHER WITHDRAWALS WOULD CONTINUE
WFTER MAY 1. "THE SITUATION WILL BE ANALYZED WHEN WE GET DOWN TO THE
COMMITMENT OF 69,000, FORD SAID.
FORD SAID THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A COMMITMENT THAT WITHDRAWALS
WOULD POINT. CONTINUE. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN ASSUME ANYTHING AT THIS
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
CZ1210PES 4/12
HOUSE ACTION, PERIOD MARCH 28, 1972 THROUGH APRIL 11, 1972
Tuesday, March 28, 1972
EASTER RECESS
GERALD R. FORD LIBRANT
The House agreed to H. Con. Res. 571, providing for an adjournment
of the House from March 29 until April 10.
WATER POLLUTION
The House continued consideration of H.R. 11896, to amend the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
By a record teller vote of 140 ayes to 249 noes, the House rejected
an amendment by Mr. Reuss that sought to require industry to use
by 1981 the best available waste treatment technology.
By a record teller vote of 125 ayes to 267 noes, the House rejected
an amendment by Mrs. Abzug that sought to empower the Environmental
Protection Agency to review and veto individual discharge permits
issued by the States.
By a record teller vote of 66 ayes to 337 noes, the llouse rejected
an amendment by Mr. McDonald that sought to require private firms
which discharge into municipal treatment systems to pay users
charges from their share of the capital costs of any federally
funded municipal treatment facility.
By a record teller vote of 154 ayes to 251 noes, the House rejected
an amendment by Mr. Reuss that sought to provide permits to control
the discharge of wastes into the Nation's waterways.
By a division vote of 34 yeas to 86 nays, the House rejected an amend-
ment by Mr. Aspin that would include liquid wastes injected into
the earth through oil waste injection wells in the definition of
"pollutant" and include groundwater pollution within the regulatory
authority of the bill.
Wednesday, March 29, 1972
TOBACCO
By a voice vote, the House passed H.R. 13361, to amend section 316(c)
of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended.
EASTER RECESS
The House agreed to the amendment of the Senate to H. Con. Res. 571,
providing for an adjournment of the House from March 29 until April 10.
(MORE)
-2--
Wednesday, March 29, 1972 (continued)
NATIONAL PARKS SYSTEM
The House agreed to the amendments of the Senate to the amendment of
the House to S. 2601, to provide for increases in appropriation
ceilings and boundary changes in certain units of the national park
system, clearing the measure for the President.
PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE--FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The House received a message from the President outlining the re-
organization of the executive branch of the Federal Government.
Referred to the Committee on Government Operations.
WATER POLLUTION
FORD R. GERALO LIBRARY
RULE
By a voice vote, on Monday, March 27, 1972, the House adopted
H. Res. 913, providing for four hours of open debate.
PASSAGE
By a record vote of 380 yeas to 14 nays, the House passed H.R. 11896,
to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Subsequently, this passage was vacated and a similar Senate-passed
bill, S. 2770, was passed in lieu, after being amended to contain
the language of the House bill as passed.
Prior to final passage, the House agreed to the following amend-
ments to the committee amendment:
By a voice vote, an amendment by Mr. Harsha that increases the
amount for fiscal year 1972 from $6 million to $11 million.
By a record teller vote of 274 ayes to 118 noes, an amendment
by Mr. William D. Ford that provides public hearings to be
held for employees who lose their employment in the case of
an industry moving to meet the alleged results from any
effluent limitation or order issued under this act.
By a record teller vote of 250 ayes to 130 noes, an amendment
by Mr. Vander Jagt that directs EPA to encourage regional
resource management that utilizes spray irrigation and re-
cycling of wastes.
By a record teller vote of 210 ayes to 173 noes, an amendment
by Mr. William D. Ford that would preserve the rights of
States to control discharges from vessels.
(MORE)
-3-
Wednesday, March 29, 1972 (continued)
WATER POLLUTION (continued)
Prior to final passage, by a record teller vote of 161 ayes to
232 noes, the House rejected an amendment by Mr. Mahon that
sought to strike the contract authority provision for $18 billion
for waste treatment grants and to substitute authorization for
"no-year" appropriations but on a 1-year advance basis.
Monday, April 10, 1972
DISTRICT DAY (NO BILLS)
NO LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
FORD R. GERALD LIBRARY
MEMBER SWORN
Mrs. George Andrews of Alabama presented herself in the Well of the
House and was administered the oath of office by the Speaker.
Tuesday, April 11, 1972
MEMBER SWORN
Cliffard D. Carlson, of Illinois, presented himself in the Well of the
House and was administered the oath of office by the Speaker.
LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATIONS
The House disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to H.R. 13955,
making appropriations for the legislative branch of the fiscal year
1973, and agreed to a conference asked by the Senate. Appointed as
conferees: Representatives Casey of Texas, Evans of Colorado, Hathaway,
Roush, Bevill, Mahon, Bow, Cederberg, Rhodes, and Wyatt.
COMMITTEE FUNDS
By a voice vote, the House agreed to H. Res. 910, to provide funds for
the Select Committee on Crime.
MANPOWER TRAINING CONTRACTS
By a voice vote, the House agreed to the conference report on S. 3054,
to amend the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962, clearing
the measure for the President.
(MORE)
-4-
Tuesday, April 11, 1972 (continued)
CRUISE VESSELS
RULE
By a voice vote, the House adopted H. Res. 914, providing one hour
of open debate.
PASSAGE
By a record vate of 374 yeas, the House passed H.R. 9552, to amend
the cruise legislation of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936.
MARITIME AUTHORIZATION
RULE
FORD R. GERALO LIBRARY
By a voice vote, the House adopted H. Res. 916, providing one hour\
of open debate.
PASSAGE
By a record vote of 364 yeas to 13 nays, the House passed H.R. 13324, to
authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 1973 for certain maritime
programs of the Department of Commerce.
COAST GUARD AUTHORIZATIONS
RULE
By a voice vote, the House adopted H. Res. 915, providing one hour
of open debate.
PASSAGE
By a record vote of 373 yeas to 1 nay, the House passed H.R. 13188,
to authorize appropriations for the procurement of vessels and air-
craft and construction of shore and offshore establishments, and to
authorize the annual active duty personnel strength for the Coast
Guard.
PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE--D.C. BUDGET
The House received and read a message from the President transmitting
the D.C. Budget for the fiscal year 1973 referred to the Committee
on Appropriations.
PROGRAM AHEAD
Wednesday, April 12, 1972 and Balance of Week
H.R. 13336 - Arms Control and Disarmament Act Amendments
(OPEN RULE - ONE HOUR OF DEBATE)
THURSDAY IS PAN AMERICAN DAY