Washington Straight Talk; Mike Mansfield

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . Senator Mike Mansfield, majority leader of the United States Senate. Tonight, on Washington's straight talk, Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, a leading figure in the possible Senate impeachment trial of President Richard Nixon.

Majority leader Mansfield answers questions from impact correspondent Paul Duke. Senator, some Republicans are now saying that the move for impeachment of the president is slowing down and it is less likely that he will be impeached or removed from office. How do you see the situation at this stage? It's hard to say I think the delay has been detrimental to the process, the constitutional process, which the House is now undertaking to resolve. Only time will tell, I couldn't say. How would you now characterize the mood in Congress? Do you feel that Republican support for the president is solidifying that he will get more Republican support than might have appeared possible just a few weeks ago? Very likely, how much more I can't say, but it seems that there has been a strengthening of the lines in many respects. You said a few weeks ago, Senator, that you felt there were enough votes in the House to impeach the president. Do you still?

No, I did not say that because when I was asked a question, I said I don't know. But that remembers the House had come to me. I never sought them out and said there were enough votes. This was about two months ago. But at the end of that question, again, I said I don't know and I don't know now. Some people suggest that the impeachment process is moving too slowly and you indicated just a moment ago that you feel that way. There is, in addition, some view at the Capitol that the Democrats are deliberately foot dragging on this issue in the House, hoping to use the impeachment process as an issue in the fall election. Is there any validity to that? I would disagree completely with that assumption. I think that the members of the Congress, both the House and the Senate, would like to see them get this issue behind us this year. And there is nothing political as far as I can see in their facing up to this situation. And I would disapprove of anything political in respect to this particular constitutional question. It's too important and it's too significant.

Well, who do you blame for the delay? I blame the White House for refusing to turn over additional documents and tapes. I do. And then I think there are too many leaks in this town and Washington is a sieve. And it's coming from every direction. And there's not only delay as far as the White House is concerned, but there are also leaks there as well as other places. Why are you concerned about the leaks? Because I want to see this matter faced up to and disposed of one way or the other this year. Do you feel that the leaks are helping the president's cause? Do you feel that, for example, some Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are being singled out as likely prospects for some of the leaks? Do you feel that in releasing this materials surreptitiously to reporters that they are playing into the hands of the White House? That I couldn't say, but I think it's adding to the delay. You, like many other senators, have called on the president to lay everything on the table. Are you disturbed by the fact that after this long period of time, Mr. Nixon still seems reluctant to give up additional tapes in material?

I am. I think that Mr. Sinclair is adopting a delaying postponing posture. I don't think it helps because it's all got to come out either in the Congress or through the courts. But again, I would like to see us disposed of this year, as far as the courts are concerned, that will take some time probably two or three years. Do you regard the president's defiance of congressional subpoenas is subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary Committee as an impeachable offense? That would be something for the House committee itself to decide. But generally speaking, would you say that this represents an attitude of contempt toward Congress on the part of the White House? I wouldn't say because I have made it a point not to be anticipatory, because if it does come to the Senate, I want to have as open a mind as possible. Therefore, I will not pass any judge on what the House does because it is the master of its procedures. Well, let me approach the matter in a slightly different way, Senator.

Do you feel that the president is abusing the doctrine of executive privilege? I think it's been carried too far, and I recall that the then Attorney General, Mr. Klein deans, some months ago, maybe it was two years ago, and when asked the question by the Senate Judiciary Committee said that it covered every employee of the federal government, that would be an excess of two million people. I think there is a need for executive privilege on a very limited basis, but I do not think that it should be used on the basis that has been used up to this time. If the president gets away with refusing to provide the evidence, which the Judiciary Committee feels it needs to reach a judgment about whether the president should be impeached, then won't all future presidents be immune from impeachment and won't the impeachment process itself in the Constitution be rendered null and void because the president would be determining what the evidence is? I would agree whether it would be rendered null and void in the future if what you just said occurs. I'm not prepared to say, but it certainly would strengthen the position of future presidents and thereby decrease the power of the Congress and consequence.

Is it possible, Senator, that if there are articles of impeachment approved by the Judiciary Committee and then approved by the House itself, that when you have a Senate trial that the Senate would then subpoena additional material and tapes from the White House? That is a possibility, but we will have to wait and see what the House does first, and if the articles of impeachment come before the Senate, then at that time we'll face up to that question. Even if there is a substantial case of wrongdoing by the White House, constituting what many members regard as impeachment, we hear it said, Senator, that Congress would not have the will or the courage to impeach the president. The Congress will face up to its responsibilities, you may rest assured of that.

So you reject such contentious. I do. Back in February, I recall you were quoted at one point as seeming to shy away from impeachment on the ground that you felt it would harm the country. Do you still feel that way? No, I think we have to follow the constitutional process which has been set in motion, and we'll have to pursue this issue to a final conclusion both in the Congress and in the courts. Senator, when you look at the broad pattern of Watergate, of everything which has come out, would you say that there is an extensive pattern of wrongdoing by the White House by the administration? Well, I would just have to point to the fact that a number of the people who used to work in the White House are now in jail and others are under indictment. Should the House approve articles of impeachment, how soon would you expect the trial to begin in the Senate? If and when it comes to the Senate, I would immediately get together with Senator Scott, the Republican leader.

I would suggest to him that we hold executive meetings of the Senate to decide what procedures and policies we should follow. We would give the president if he is subject to the articles of impeachment, that is through an affirmative vote by the House, and it comes to us and to the course, every consideration so that he could prepare any case which he wished to present to the Senate when the time came. Well, what exactly would happen then during the trial? How would the trial then proceed? Well, the Senate would be not jurors, but judges. It would be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who would be the presiding officer only, who could lay down opinions, but they would be subject to objection by any one senator, and they could be overturned by a majority vote of the Senate. Any questions which occur during such proceedings would have to be settled by a majority vote, and there would be no chance for a filibuster, questions would have to be in writing, and the only time a two-thirds vote would be required would be on the final question.

Would you expect the president himself to be on hand? That would be up to him, if it comes to the Senate. How long would the trial take place, Senator? I have to guess, because as you can well understand, I've had no previous experience with matters of this kind, but my guess would be two months or less. Two months or less, you think it's possible to wind it up, say, in a month? It all depends, two months or less. You would favor televising the trial, would you? Oh, yes, because I wouldn't want senators to be way laid in the corridors or on the capital steps, and each of them perhaps give a different interpretation of what went on. I think the people, after all, happen to be the government of this country, ought to have the right to hear and to see. And then if the networks want to interview senators, that's fine, but then the people would have a chance to judge what was said on the basis of what they saw and what they heard.

What about the working hours, if you had a trial? How long would you begin in the morning? How long would you go throughout the day? And how many days of the week would you proceed? Six days a week, and we would come in at 12 o'clock usually, unless there were other considerations to be thought of. We would operate, if the Senate approves, on the basis of attending to this matter only, but once in a while, if need be, we would have two sessions by means of which we would go out for one or two or three hours, and then come back to consider only the most important legislation, and that would be appropriation builds in the life. In other words, you would not entirely lay aside other legislative business. Not entirely if highly significant legislation had not been completed. Is it possible that the trial would continue on into the evening?

It could. Senator, there are some of your colleagues who have been suggesting that if the House approves an impeachment resolution, and it comes to you on the eve of the election, or relatively close to the election, that it should be postponed until after the election. What is your feeling about that? Well, if we were ready to conduct the hearings on the issue during the election, I would recommend to the Senate that we go ahead on that basis, that the election be secondary, and I'm sure that that's what the people would want because they don't want this issue hanging over their heads any more than we do. Well, if the trial continued and took place after the election, would the new senators who were elected in November, would they play any role? A passive role, a bystander role, and I would suggest to Senator Scott that we suggest to the Senate that new senators who have been certified as elected, be given a certain space in the gallery so that they could watch and be aware of what was going on. And then if by some chance, which I hope does not occur, the issue would go beyond the end of this year and into the next Congress, they would be prepared to step down and enter into the proceedings, and at that time would be given all the information which had been available to sitting senators so that they could become fully aware of what had been developing.

They are not senators until they are sworn in, and senators who are retiring or will be defeated, they will be senators until noon, January the 3rd, 1975. Some question has arisen about the legitimacy of continuing a trial from this Congress into a new Congress in 1975. I've always maintained that the Senate was a continuing body. Two-thirds of them are not up for election every two years, and I would think that the doctrine of continuity of the Senate would take care of that situation. In the House, it would be a different matter because all the members every two years are up for election. But wouldn't you be switching judges, wouldn't you be adding judges in midstream, and couldn't the president then take the issue to court if he were convicted?

He could, but I would look upon elected or senators elect who had been duty certified as being altered judges so to speak, and to be prepared as altered as jurors are to step in to fill vacancies which might occur. Senator, when we survey everything which has happened during the past two years, what do you think Watergate has done to the country? I think it's helped to bring about divisions among our people. I think it's hard in the attitudes of some on both sides. It has created a situation which has, in effect, weakened the White House to a certain extent domestically, although I believe that the House and the Senate, the Congress, have acted responsibly and with restraint, and we have been conducting the people's business as we are supposed to. In the field of foreign policy, I would say it has not hindered the president. There he has been able to carry on his activities with a good deal of success. And I think that the only place where there is a weakening, and that one would have to be considered as not too great a weakening, would be in the domestic area.

You say the White House itself has been weakened, and I'd like to ask you how much you feel the presidency has been damaged because we've always been brought up to revere and to respect this office, and children have been taught that if you get good grades and if you grow up and become honest and fair and square, that you too can become president. Do you think that this concept has been undermined by what has happened? Yes, I think the presidency has been damaged without doubt. Do you think that Mr. Nixon can ever regain the credibility of the American people? That's hard to say. He is still the president. He must be accorded the responsibilities which are president. The office must be held in reverence, in my opinion, and as far as we're concerned, we have always been willing to go halfway and more to work with the executive branch, and we will continue to do so. Some critics suggest that the Washington atmosphere has been so politically poisoned that confidence in government can never return until Mr. Nixon leaves office, either by a conviction in a Senate trial or by serving Arthur remainder of his turn.

That's a hard question to answer because the final decision is going to rest with the people themselves, and as long as a man is in the office of the presidency, he has all the rights and prerogatives and responsibilities that go with it. And all I can say is, what I've said previously, we'll do our best to cooperate with the office of the presidency at all times. You said last year that Congress had become the anchor of the people's freedoms. What did you mean by that? That we were not being diverted by Watergate and related issues. As a matter of fact, you hear Watergate seldom mention in the Senate that we have faced up to our responsibilities, and I think the record will bear that statement out. Some people, Senator, are questioning the standards of justice being applied in the Watergate case, contending that there's too much plea bargaining with the defendants, and that too many lenient sentences are being meted out. Do you share any of this attitude?

That may well be, but I have the utmost confidence in Mr. Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor, and so much faith in him that I have to believe that he knows what he's doing and that what he's doing is in the best interest of the country. There are these discrepancies which are notable and remarkable. That's about all I can say. Richard Kleindeans, the former attorney general, got off with a legal tap on the wrist for not telling the truth to a major congressional committee. Now, what does this do to the congressional investigative process? Doesn't this mean that any administration witness can now appear before a committee and lie? No, I wouldn't agree with that statement, because I think that the committees have strengthened up their procedures. We will not confirm any man anymore who is subject to interrogation by the appropriate Senate committees unless he has promised ahead of time that he will appear for legitimate reasons at the request of any committee, which has responsibility over his particular job or his particular department. So I think that the committees will be more careful, will be looking more closely at these people, and that there will be a good deal more in the way of cooperation and truth and honesty as a result.

And I think that's one of the things going to come out of Watergate and related matters. Senator Mansfield, do you feel the president is now devoting too much attention to foreign policy and too little attention to domestic problems? I don't think he's devoting too much attention to foreign policy because in this shrunken world we have to maintain contacts and negotiations to avoid possible confrontations. But I do think that more attention should be made, should be focused on our domestic needs, especially in the area of inflation, which is now running at about 12 percent, about which the administration is doing absolutely nothing, and about which the Congress is doing very, very little. So the result is that we're staggering along. Everybody's pocketbook is being hurt, and no action is being taken by the duly elected representatives of the people, the president in the White House, and the members of the Congress. Well, why isn't Congress doing something about inflation?

They've tried, but the votes aren't there. We tried, for example, to even retain a stand-by control system, which was voted down by a majority. Some of us have advocated that we return to Phase 2, which worked very well as far as prices and wages were concerned, but which were taken off a year ago last January. Some of us have made attempts to introduce legislation covering the so-called Brazilian index plan, really an American plan, not because we think it's a panacea, but because we want to get the appropriate committees to work to start a dialogue and to come up with some solutions to the economic difficulties which confront all our people today. This is a worldwide situation, which is developed. It's not tied to Watergate, and I think if we're going to avoid a depression, we'd better do something and get off the dime. Well, do you regard this as one of the reasons that Congress is now looked upon very unfavorably by the American people? Some of the polls, for example, showing that the people rate Congress at an all-time low? Yes, I think that is correct, but I would point out also that the Congress, about three months ago, was rated at 21%, the President, 25%.

I raised the Democratic conference, and one of the senators there said, well, don't talk about it too much. Maybe that's the highest we've ever been. But within the past month, another poll has been taken, which indicates that the rating of the Congress has risen to 31%. Which I think is a very encouraging sign and a recognition of the fact that we are trying to act responsibly and with restraint. You have another problem which is now developing in the Senate. It seems like the filibuster is coming back. Can you do anything about that? I'm not really, because if a determined band of senators want to get together and undertake a filibuster called Extended Debate by some, educational by others, it's just a case of wearing them out or wearing them down. And it takes time, but it will be done. I'm not against the filibuster because I think it's a vital weapon, but I don't like to see it used up haphazardly. Some Democrats have been talking about electing a veto-proof Congress in November, but Vice President Ford has been trooping around the country saying this would lead to legislative dictatorship. Is that a fair criticism?

I would disagree with the Vice President, and I would disagree with the idea of a veto-proof Congress, because I think when you build up a symbol of that kind, it will react against the Democrats especially, and make the chances of achieving such a possibility that much more impossible. Another issue which now involves Congress is the role which Henry Kissinger played in the wiretaps in some security cases. Now, you and 51 other senators signed a resolution recently saying that Kenned is that Kissinger's reputation for veracity, that his integrity is beyond question. How can you say that? I can say it on the basis of five appearances Kissinger made before the Foreign Relations Committee at which time he was subject to very close questioning on the basis of private conversations and meeting with Kissinger. And I think he has been candid up to this time. He has asked for the committee to once again look into it, which I think indicates his faith in what he says, as far as believability is concerned.

And yes, I have. He has my confidence. I think he's done a superb job under most difficult circumstances. I think he's been honest with the committee and his appearances before. Now, if anything comes out of these further hearings, which he requested, we'll have to wait and see. But you would acknowledge that his testimony is in dispute, and there are some conflicts in this case, wouldn't you, Senator? And didn't this resolution undermine the investigation, which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans to... There are differences, which will be worked out, but it did not undermine the investigation because the statement was made in connection with that resolution. After we were passing on our knowledge of what Secretary Kissinger has done and said up to date, and I repeat, the case has been reopened, the issue has been reopened at his specific request. Senator, speaking of the elections, the Democrats are obviously hoping to make significant gains this fall. How many Senate seats do you think you may pick up?

Hard to say, I think that the INS, Democrat and Republican, are all in trouble, differing in degree, because the people are cynical and disturbed and disheartened and mad at the government. And they're mad at the administration. They're mad at the Congress. So there's going to be some changes. There's going to be some additions. And I would hope that we would increase our majority in the Senate by somewhere from five to seven votes. Who do you regard as the leading prospects for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976? Well, there are a number of them. I think the people want new faces because they're tired of the old faces and the old candidates. I think of such men as Governor Rubin asked you of Florida, who has been outstanding in his administration of the affairs of that state. Men like Lloyd Benson, a Senator from Texas, who has the sort of a personality and intelligence that sort of creeps up on you, grows slowly but stays fast.

Fritz Mondale of Minnesota, a cummer, young enough to be considered a new face, a man of heart, who thinks of the people. There'll be others, probably Governor Gilgen of Ohio, should be given consideration, but we're still two and a half, two years away. Well, the one man you do not mention as Senator Edward Kennedy. Now, some time ago, you said that you hoped he did not run. Do you still feel that way? Yes, I hope he doesn't run because Senator Kennedy is a good Senator. And if he were to run for the presidency and get the nomination, I would support him without compunction. But I think of it in a personal sense. I think of his two brothers. I think of his family. I think of his young son. And he's such a good Senator. I'd like to see him remain there, but the decision is going to be up to him and up to the convention.

Do you feel that he could provide the moral leadership, which the country now needs, considering the cloud of chapequitic? I think so, though. That would be an issue which he would have to overcome and it would be difficult. We get periodic reports that Mike Mansfield may not come back, that you may retire in 1976. Any truth to this? I have no intention of retiring at this time. You expect to come back? Well, it's up to the people of Montana, not me. Senator, your leadership, you've been a leader for a long time, but one Senate staffer said some time ago that the only thing wrong with Mike Mansfield is that he's not enough of a bastard. Do you feel sometimes that maybe you're too nice a guy? No. I have no complaints to make, and maybe that Senate staffer was correct in what he said. But I can't hate people. I don't dislike people. I, like all the senators, I treat all of them, Republican and Democrat, as I would like to be treated.

And I found out through life that honey gets you more in the long run than vinegar. Thank you very much, Senator Mansfield. From Washington, N-Pact has brought you Washington straight taught, with Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, an N-Pact correspondent Paul Duke. This program has been made possible by Grant from the Ford Foundation. This has been a production of N-Pact, a division of GWETA.