Washington Straight Talk; Timmens

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . You mentioned the House Judiciary Committee which has the jurisdiction on the impeachment and resolutions. But what that committee looks like, what its structure really is? Obviously there are attorneys. There seems to be an inordinate amount of freshmen on the committee and newcomers to Congress. The Democratic side particularly is heavily oriented to the liberal side of the philosophy. The Republicans are from the conservative wing of the Republican Party. I really look for some partisan fights within the committee because of that complexion. I think that most of the members are fair. I think they're put in a hot spot on this issue of impeachment. Particularly the Republican members find themselves in uncomfortable position. Why in the Republican members?

Well it's the Republican president that they're investigating and that has to be uncomfortable for a Republican member of Congress. And particularly one on the committee that has to look at the material and investigate their own president. But wouldn't it be very easy and almost automatic for them to support the Republican president? Not necessarily because their constituents I think are looking for a fair analysis of the information that they can get. They're up for election this year too. And there's a tendency in Congress this year for last year too, as far as that goes, for many members of Congress to shy away from any support for the administration on the Watergate issue. Because they're afraid that the public will paint them with that big black brush and they'll be tarred with Watergate image and it'll affect their re-elections. So the Republican members want to be fair and they want to look at the material that's presented to them in an objective way. I wish I could say the same for some of the Democrats on the committee. I think there's some real partisan Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. Many of them have authored resolutions of impeachment.

Many of them have spoken about impeachment even before the evidence is in. Do you think those partisan Democrats want to get Mr. Nixon out or keep him in office? I think that they would really like to keep him in office while publicly charging that like to have him out of office. I think they'd like to string out the inquiry, the investigation through the elections and use it as a political tool just so Republicans out of office. Is the Judiciary Committee a fair cross-section of the House or is it tilted in one way? It's tilted as far as the Democratic side is concerned. I think it's tilted to the liberal side of the Democratic Party. I'd like to know how you and your office approach this impeachment question. Is it just another vote as far as you're concerned or will you lobby on it or will you keep hands off? No, we are not lobby on the impeachment of vote. A channel of communication has been set up from the Staff Director and Council of the Committee to the White House Council, Mr. St. Clair.

And that would be the appropriate vehicle for exchanging information and negotiating on materials. We, of course, will continue our normal legislative function in Congress and the House. And we'll continue to work with the Judiciary Committee members, but not on the issue of impeachment. Why do you have to keep hands off? It seems to me the President ought to have the normal sort of facilities available to him to see that his side of the case has been explained to the members of Congress. Well, it may be that at some point we will engage in that sort of information passing to members of the committee. But the members of the committee so far have asked us, they're a little reluctant to have any direct contacts with the White House other than through the Council's office because of fear that they're not going to be objective. And they want to maintain that purity and consequently have not sought information from the legislative office, but rather from the Council's office.

Is the desire for purity bipartisan or is it, is this mean that the friends of the President outside Congress are immobilized while the lobbies that we know of that are favoring impeachment are working at very hard? No, I think that Americans who support the President have and will continue to express themselves to their congressmen and to the committee. I see nothing wrong with constituents who are interested in the President voicing their views to their congressmen and to the committee and to the Speaker of the House. But as far as the White House legislative office is concerned, the members of the Judiciary Committee, particularly the Republicans, are kind of keeping hands off attitude. Are you taking any position on the vote coming up this week on the grant of subpoena powers to the Judiciary Committee? No, Dave. We feel that that is a housekeeping measure for the House of Representatives. It is not law in the sense that it's a bill that comes for the President's signature.

We didn't request the measure, obviously, but it was reported out of the committee virtually unanimously. The Republican leader of the House supports it, so we feel that it is like appropriations for the committees in the Congress or a referral of a particular piece of legislation to a committee. It's a housekeeping measure for the House to decide on its own merits. Well, assuming that the committee is given that power, then the next question will be as to what the President's attitude reaction will be when they begin requesting or subpoenaing material. Now, I don't want to ask you about a legal judgment, because I know that's not your responsibility, but just in terms of your own job in advising the President as to congressional reaction. What advice would you give him as far as his response to requests or subpoenas of material from the Judiciary Committee? I think that he has to answer inquiries whether it be formal or informal for information in a reasonable manner.

Now, reasonable lists can be interpreted different ways by different people. Those things that are relevant, obviously I would hope that they could be made available to the committee. Those things that are not relevant, I think the President will have to refuse on the grounds of confidentiality of his communications. It's very difficult for those of us in the White House who work directly with the President and other people who come in and talk to the President not to assume that those conversations are going to be guarded and secure. I would certainly hate for my conversations with the President some day to be laid out on the front page of the newspapers or television programs. And I think the President to get the diversity of views that he must get from his staff and cabinet officers and people outside of government and members of Congress, by the way, that if they thought that everything they talked to the President about would be laid out in the front pages and perhaps misinterpreted. They'd be reluctant to give the kind of advice that the President needs.

As a matter of headcounting, though, can the President afford to refuse any request from the Judiciary Committee? Yes, I think he can. You think there's enough votes on that committee to sustain his position on that? I'm not sure there's enough votes on the committee. I think in the House of Representatives there would be enough. I didn't ask you, but I should. What is your present judgment? Is the Committee going to report a bill of impeachment? That's a half question. The other half would be, what are the charges? Well, answer that. I don't, I have to think that there are no charges, and therefore I think they will not report a bill of impeachment. I can't imagine what the charges would be. Friends ask me, well, what are the votes in the House for impeachment? Well, you have to know what the charges are to try to analyze how members will vote on a particular issue. Maybe it's because he brushes his teeth three times a day. Is that an impeachable offense?

Well, I think we could win that one on the House floor. And they've got to have hard evidence that seems to me to bring out an impeachment bill on any other area. And I don't think they'll have that. Well, you were one who was very much in favor of operation candor and laying out as much of the information as possible. Can you shed any light on this remarkable circumstance in which the Senate Republican leader is now out on the limb saying the White House has evidence, which will clear the President and impeach the testimony of John Dean. But the White House does not make that evidence public? I support Senator Scott's position. Have you seen that embedded yourself? No, I haven't. I have not seen the same materials that Senator Scott has seen. But I think Senator Scott is absolutely correct in what he says. The issue revolves around a perjury. And I think Senator Scott talked about possibilities of perjury against John Dean.

And I think that is a legal term. What is perjury and what is not perjury? I think there is information in those tapes, the John Dean tapes so-called that is in the possession of special prosecutor that is very favorable to the President of the United States. Whether they can bring charges of perjury or not, I'm not sure. Well, why didn't put out? Well, it didn't put out for several reasons. First of all, it may injure the rights of some of the people who are still under investigation by the special prosecutor's office. One, two, it seems to me inconsistent to argue about confidentiality of communications when the White House itself is putting out transcripts or verbatim quotes from certain tapes. So those two issues seem to override the value of releasing that information now. And there's no consequences from leaving the Republican leader of the Senate just simply out on that limb.

When the Vice President says that the White House ought to make clear what the evidence is to back him up. When the special prosecutor says he has no objection to the White House doing that, and yet the White House remains silent. I think the special prosecutor, Judge Sirika, said he would have no objection, I believe, to the White House putting out transcripts. I think the special prosecutor hedge just a little bit on that. I think he is sensitive to what transcripts may do to indictments and to trials. So I'm very much concerned about the Republican leader out on the limb like he is, and as you know, members of the press are giving him a pretty good working over about it. The only advice I have to send to Scott is that if he can hang on for a while, that eventually he will be proven right, and I think he'll stand very big in the eyes of his constituents and his colleagues. Some Republicans, including I think John Rhodes, the minority leader in the House, said they were very disturbed by the congressional reaction in the hall to the President's State of the Union message and talked about an atmosphere of poisonous partisanship.

Is that the tone that you got from your contacts with members of Congress? Yes, I think the Republicans at the State of the Union rallied behind the President. They gave him standing innovations on several occasions and prolonged the plows on others. Some Democrats did, but many partisan Democrats, I feel, did not give the President the normal courtesy that's afforded a chief executive when he appears in a joint session. And I'm afraid that partisanship will carry over into certainly the impeachment inquiry and perhaps other legislative areas. Does the President have an adequate feel of Congress as he heads into a year when they're going to be debating not just his program but his fate literally? Does he see enough members of Congress to satisfy you?

Well, Dave, I can't say that he sees enough to satisfy me because I see relations with Congress and sort of a biased perspective. I'd like for him to spend every waking hour with members of Congress because that's my job. I do think that he sees enough members of Congress to understand what they're thinking about, what's on their minds, their views and their ideas on legislation and other big issues facing the country. For example, he's had two bipartisan leadership meetings this year already. He's had two Republican leadership meetings this year already. He's met with two other groups of members and numerous individual members. Here in those meetings, do the people speak up as freely when they are face to face with the President as they speak to you when they're telling you about their concerns? Not always. The members of Congress are probably more forthright with staff members than they are with the President. They do make their points with the President but they do it in a different way. They're not quite as belligerent with the President and I think that's proper as they are with the staff.

I think we provide a good function though and allowing members to let steam off their chest and talk to us candidly about problems as they see it. They're a little reluctant to talk that way with the President. Nevertheless, they're not reluctant to express the views of the party or constituency or the committee jurisdiction or the Congress when they're with the President. You've been in the hot seat on this job for five years now, really the point of friction between the Democratic Congress and a Republican President. How do you keep your own perspective in sanity? Well, I enjoy my work, Dave and I think that's part of the answer. I couldn't survive if you didn't enjoy it. I like to give and take with the members. I have a wonderful job of having part paperwork and trying to digest legislative issues, making recommendations to the President, preparing papers for the President.

But yet, part of my work is outside contact work dealing directly with members and understanding their concerns and that's fun. And I've enjoyed these five years and I hope I have some time left to serve the President and the country. Well, we have very little time left here but thank you very much for coming and talking with us today. Washington Straight Talk. From Washington and in fact has brought you William E. Timmins, Assistant to the President for Congressional Relations, with David Broder, National Political Correspondent for the Washington Post. Coming up on Washington Straight Talk, further interviews with public figures on such topics as foreign affairs, the administration, inflation, energy and other major issues of the day. The preceding program was made possible by a grant from the Ford Foundation. This has been a production of Impact.