Washington Straight Talk; Sen. Robert Byrd

Senator Robert C. Bird, Democrat of West Virginia, Assistant Majority Leader of the Senator in the Senate. Tonight, on Washington's straight talk, Senator Robert Bird is interviewed by NPAC correspondent Paul Duke. Senator, we're delighted to have you with us tonight. We should tell our viewers that our scheduled guest, Robert Hartman, the president's number one advisor, unfortunately, could not be with us because Mr. Ford gave him orders to stick to writing his economic address, which Mr. Ford is giving to Congress tomorrow. But since we had planned to have you as our guest in a couple of weeks, we just moved up the time and were delighted you

could oblige. And speaking of Mr. Ford's economic address, what are you hoping for when he delivers it tomorrow? I hope he will be utterly frank with the American people and tough in his recommendations. And now, when you say you hope he's tough in his recommendations, would you be specific? What would you like the president to lay out for the American people? What kind of sacrifices do you think we must make to meet the current economic crisis? I think he ought to lay out a tough conservation program. You're talking about energy now? Yes. Because energy is one of the basics that go into the inflationary spiral. I think he ought not rule out standby wage and price controls. I think he ought to indicate that he's going to have standby wage and price controls, and that he will do some strong job owning, and that he will initially rely on voluntary compliance. But he ought to have

some backup standby, wage and price controls, with authority to cut back, to roll back if necessary. Then, too, I think he ought to indicate that heavy pressure is going to be placed on the Federal Reserve to lower the interest rates. And I think he ought to also indicate that he feels that he should have standby gasoline rationing authority. Now, I'm against gasoline rationing. I'm against wage and price controls, in ordinary circumstances. And even recently, back in the spring, I was opposed to gasoline rationing. But I think that the voluntary approach is not working, and the president needs a stick in the closet. Well, do you think that the time has come for gasoline rationing?

I think the president ought to have standby gasoline rationing authority, so that the American people would really see that we are in a crunch, and that in as much as the voluntary approach is not working, that the government is prepared to go somewhere else. Well, there's no reason that Congress can't give the president standby authority for gas rationing, is there? No reason that it can't. And it sought to do so early this year. The effort was not successful. In that instance, I voted to give him be standby authority. But that was met with opposition from the administration. What you're suggesting is that the White House take the lead in a tough program. White House has to take the lead because the action arm of the government in dealing with inflation has to be the executive right. There has to be a leader, 535 men and women in the Congress of the United States can't administer the programs that are going to have

to be administered. Senator, what about a surtax increase or a surtax imposed on our income taxes? We're told that this will be in Mr. Ford's package. Do you favor that? Depends upon where the level is, where it strikes, where it applies. Well, for example, we've been told that Mr. Ford may recommend a surtax on income levels above $7,000. There's another report that it might be above $15,000. Where do you think it should be? It should be above either of these levels. To talk about a surcharge on income taxes above $7,500 is a turn on sense. And to talk about it even at a $15,000, even at a $15,000 level, I think is unrealistic because the people who are in the $15,000 year category, other people who are suffering. Now, the federal government pays for health care for the poor.

It provides educational assistance for the disadvantage. It provides for food stamps. And I've voted for all these things, and I want to help the poor. But we've got to think about the fellow who's in the middle who's been paying the bills. Now, the rich can take care of themselves. They can provide their own health care. They can provide for their own education. They don't need food stamps. But it's the fellow who's struggling on a $15,000 year income, $12,000 year income, who has to pay for a house. The interest rates are up. If he hasn't already purchased a house, he's not going to get one because the interest rates are out of sight. He can't get alone. He's got to send his children to school. The federal government isn't going to send them to school. And that poor fellow who's struggling along on $15,000 year, while it sounds like a high salary to those who make less naturally. But he is the fellow who has been paying the freight all along. I'm continuing to help the poor, but we've got to think of this fellow in the middle who's been paying the bills

while the wealthy are able to hire the lawyers to find the loophole so that they don't have to care their share of the freight. So I would be in favor, perhaps, of a surcharge on income tax. But somewhere above the $15,000 level, I don't mind paying it myself. And certainly there, I don't know where the level would be, but $25,000, $30,000, that's fine. But $15,000 no. Those people are in, it's about time they got some relief. There's also been talk as you know, Senator, about cutting the federal budget. Can we cut the federal budget at a time when unemployment is going up and a recession is now here? Congress has reduced the appropriations budget request over the past five years by $23.5 billion. Now, the Senate recently reduced the defense budget request by $5 billion. Other cuts are being made. We'll probably end up this year with $6 or $7 billion total reductions in the federal appropriations budget. But this isn't going to be sufficient. The economists

say that a $5 billion reduction in the federal budget will only amount to a one-tenth of one percent, or at most two-tenths of one percent, reduction in the rate of inflation. This is not going to be enough. What it would do, of course, would be, it would have a psychological impact. It would let the American people know that the federal government does mean business. But there has to be a lot more done other than just cutting the federal budget. Senator, Mr. Ford, in his first speech to Congress, talked about conciliation, communication, compromise, and cooperation with the legislative branch. Is he living up to that pledge? Yes, I think he is in the mean. He's trying to be conciliatory, he's trying to be cooperative. I think he's a warm, decent man. And I think he is conscientiously and sincerely trying to do the right thing. That in itself is good. It's going to take more than just that to run this country.

How would you assess his performance thus far? The first thirty days fine. There was a new era of good feeling, ushered in. And everybody felt that this was a clean breath of fresh air that the people needed. It was openness in government that would need it for song. But then when Mr. Ford pardoned the former President Nixon ten days after he had said a news conference that he wouldn't do that until judicial process had had an opportunity to work as well. This then immediately set Mr. Ford back. I think he blew it. His standing in the polls dropped twenty-three points within forty-eight hours. His amnestic program for draft evaders and deserters also hurt him. It didn't please anybody. It didn't please either side in that country. The agreement that was worked out by the General Services Administration

with Mr. Nixon concerning the tapes and documents of Mr. Nixon was 99.99% favorable toward Mr. Nixon and one tenth of one percent favorable toward the American people. That was a blunder. And these things have helped to destroy the initial feeling of openness and candor fourth rightness. And then on top of that the President's request for $850,000 for the former President at times when people were struggling to pay their bills, at times when we were told that we've got to cut back. And my judgment was a serious mistake on his part. Well the President is appearing this week before the House Judiciary Committee to give a further explanation of the pardon. Aren't you pleased by that? Isn't this an example of openness? It is. I am pleased that he's going to do this. But what more can he say? He made his statement at the time of the pardon as to his reasons. He came on later in the press conference and really indicated that there was nothing new to say that the pardon

had not been granted by virtue of any medical reasons. And as far as I know, no medical report up at that time had ever been requested by the President concerning Mr. Nixon's conditions. Condition. He indicated that it was merely to bring about a healing of the wounds. But what more can he say in an appearance? I think it's a fan that is going up, but I understand that he won't be put under oath. And I think he should be put under oath. I think he should be put under oath because if this is to set the example that the President is just like any other citizen appearing before a Congressional committee and that there's going to become candor and openness. Why shouldn't he? Why shouldn't he be put under oath? Otherwise it's not as the average citizen. It's not as the Attorney General when he appeared before a committee. It's not as a cabinet officer when he appeared before a committee. Really, I think he should be put under oath. You know, that's the best way of really getting down to the nuts and bolts.

Well, going further into the nuts and bolts of its senator, you have been one of those who's talked a great deal about executive privilege and the dangers of a President refusing to provide information to Congress, refusing to permit his closest aides testifying before Congress. Now, do you feel, by Mr. Ford's willingness to appear this time before the Judiciary Committee, that this will open the door for future appearances by this President or another President before other committees of Congress? Well, regardless of what one may say, it sets a precedent. One can say, well, it's not supposed to be a precedent, but it is a precedent. I would not want to see the Congress abuse. But I think our legitimate powers and in the future unduly press for the appearance of the President or people in his administration. But there is a line somewhere. There is

an area in which the President should allow his aides to come to Congress. Now, I think that we have witnessed, we've come through a period in which the doctrine of executive privilege was run into the ground. And I was happy to see the Supreme Court. And it's eight to nothing decision. Take the position that there is no such thing as absolute executive privilege. Yes, this is a precedent. I don't—I would only hope that the President would be put under oath and that he would be asked some straight hard questions. I don't mean that he should be harassed or pilloried or badgered. He should be dealt with courteously as they should ever witness. But the American people are not satisfied with the reasons that Mr. Ford gave. And I'm not saying that they were not sincere reasons. I think he made a mistake in judgment. Well, some people feel that Mr. Ford still

has not broken his tie sufficiently with Mr. Nixon. One of the things being done is a plane is being dispatched each week, each week, to California, government plane, to brief Mr. Nixon on security matters and to provide him with some security papers. Do you feel this is wrong? I don't think it's justified. I realize that this has been a practice that has been carried on in the past. But I don't think it's justified in this instance. I think that there could come a time and circumstances in which Mr. Ford might want to talk with Mr. Nixon about some situation, if a national emergency arose, involving international affairs, that he has Mr. Kissinger, who is really the spark plug in the operations that involve the Nixon International policy, which was a successful policy. So I don't see an

justification for this. It's an expenditure of the taxpayers' money that I think could be stopped. I think it continues to leave a bad taste in the mouth of the American people. Senator, despite everything you say, if Mr. Ford succeeds in getting the economy back on key, isn't he going to be unbeatable in 1976? No, I wouldn't say it would be unbeatable. And you say, if he succeeds, and I hope he will succeed, but into that if one has to infuse believability in government, because if there isn't a believability in government, if government doesn't have credibility, then it cannot expect the support from the American people in its programs. Mr. Ford, as I say, is a decent man. I like him. He's very personable and charming. But he hurt his credibility when he proposed the Amnesty program, because

he posed that first. Many people thought when they heard that, that there was something else coming, like perhaps a pardon Mr. Nixon, then the $850,000 request from Mr. Nixon. The incredible agreement that was worked out between Mr. Ford's people and Mr. Nixon concerning the tapes and documents indicated that Mr. Ford had not learned the lesson of Watergate. And all of these things, as I say, as pardon Mr. Nixon, 10 days after he had said in the press conference to do it, just the opposite, have hurt his credibility. Now, without credibility, the American people really don't know whether or not there is the kind of energy problem that necessitates their cutting off the light. They're cutting off the heat. They're not wasting gasoline. Well, in the light of all this, Senator, what kind of candidate should the Democrats nominate in 1976? This goes across the board. Democrats are going

to have to nominate men who have credibility, integrity, courage, common sense, and guts. A heritage, a heritage human type, Democrat, I would say, is the kind. And men who are in the middle of the road. It's going to have to have a program that's in the middle of the road. Now, both sides can infuse opinions and input that left and the right. Part of us not go off to the left or off to the right. It's going to have to feel to moderate program and moderate candidates who can appeal to the great mainstream. Such as. Such as the independence of the small business people, the blue collar workers, the ethnic groups, the South, the border states, and all of these who didn't leave the party, but who felt that the party had left them in the last. Well, who do you see in the Democratic Party who fits into this mold that you've just given us? It's far too early. Give me some names, though. I don't want to give any names, but it's far too early. The presidential

elections are two years away, and we still have the 1974 election. The people are going to be considering the 1974 election, the elections, the political leaders, the political figures, candidates and so forth. They're wrapped up in the 1974 elections, and I don't want to get into naming names at this point. There's ample time to do that. Does Robert Bird fit this mold? Robert Bird is not. Disinterested. Put another way you are interested, then. Well, let's put it my way. He's not disinterested. And I think there's plenty of time to observe and watch developments. It is a possibility that's probably only a mere thin possibility, but I wouldn't rule it out. Well, not ruling it out. Is it possible then that you will enter the West Virginia Democratic primary in 1976? That's a long way

down the road. I'm not projecting myself that far. But not ruling out the presidency. You also not rule out the vice presidential nomination. As I say, I'm not disinterested. I'm not lying awake at night. I'm not staying up at night thinking and planning about what may happen in 1976. But I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a spot on the national ticket. I'm certainly not disinterested. Well, Senator, this brings us to the question of the Republican vice presidential situation. Now, you indicated clearly at the Senate hearings on Governor Rockefeller that you were not satisfied with some of his answers to the questions. Is it possible that you will vote against his confirmation? As of today, I expect to vote for Mr. Rockefeller's nomination. No, I don't know what may develop yet. I was impressed

by his knowledge of multitudinous subjects. I was disappointed in his some of his answers. I felt that he was evasive, and it left me very uncertain as to where Mr. Rockefeller really stood on some of the issues. That bothers me. But I don't think that that in itself is enough to cause me to vote against him because I don't think I should vote against him purely on that narrow philosophical basis. There are many things that he probably stands for that I do. Are you at all disturbed by the disclosure that Mr. Rockefeller gave a $50,000 gift to Henry Kissinger and gave other monetary gifts to Aids who served him while he was Governor in New York? Not necessarily. On its surface. I'm told that he reported the gift and that he paid a gift tax on each gift. That being the case, I see nothing

on the surface that disturbs me. Now the Rules Committee will meet on Wednesday and will discuss this. It will depend upon what else surfaces, if anything else does. It will depend upon the audit that is being made by the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation in conjunction with the Internal Revenue Service. But this in itself with nothing more would not disturb me greatly. There's another controversial nomination now pending in the Senate that of Peter Flanagan. Except if I may add this, and I ask you to pardon my interruptions, it does show what one can do when he has tremendous wealth, really that goes beyond the comprehension of the average individual. Well, that leads to another question, Senator. If you have that much wealth, and Mr. Rockefeller has enormous

holdings in oil stocks, chemical stocks, various other companies, which do a great deal of business with this government, now can you possibly avoid conflicts of interest given the fact that he has such tremendous wealth? I think it comes down to the question as to whether the individual, Mr. Rockefeller, can conscientiously daivores his considerations of financial aspects regarding himself and his family in the making of decisions that he would have to make at Vice President of the United States? Can he differentiate between what benefits big business and what benefits the American people? This is the key. I don't

doubt that he has so much wealth. Mr. Rockefeller, I think, would be above political corruption. Why have another million dollars when you already have 185 million or 200 million? What difference does it make? I think he can stand above that, but yet one can live so long in the forest that he can't see the forest for the trees. This is what concerns me. He's been tied up with big insurance, big banks, big oil, big business for so long. I'm wondering if he really can differentiate between the interest of the American people and the interest of big business and sometimes those interest run parallel. They're not necessarily counter to each other, but he's able to do this. This was the question that troubled me.

What about the nomination of Peter Flanagan to be ambassador to Spain? Some senators are suggesting that may never get through. Well, it may. I have already indicated that I would object to any waiver of Senate rule 38, which requires that in a recess of more than 30 days, any nominations that are before the Senate have to be sent back to the President. Of course, he can return those nominations after the recess, but this would in effect kill the nomination of Mr. Flanagan, except that Mr. Ford could revive it following the recess and could send it back. My problem with Mr. Flanagan goes again to this whole drab episode of Watergate and the bad taste that it is left in the mouth of the body politic. Here we are, Mr. Ford, naming Mr. Hague to take over the head of NATO and to be Commander of U.S. forces in Europe. After Mr. Hague's close association with Mr. Nixon during the

years, the last two years, when Mr. Nixon was trying to cut the losses and save himself. And after Mr. Hague had resigned from a military commission and had taken on a civilian political role, and then, as again, appointed to a high command position. I think this is bad for the military. I think it's bad for morale. I think it's the wrong thing to do. But the same thing on a much lesser scale can be said about Mr. Flanagan. Here was a man who was, who was, we had a difficult time getting him up before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the nominations, hearings on the nomination of Mr. Clendon. And the Senate Judiciary Committee had to stand with its hat in its hand and draw a narrowly restricted line within which we said we would ask Mr. Flanagan a question. We wouldn't go beyond that boundary. And I voted against Mr. Clendon as partly for that reason. But here now is a man who's being appointed to the Ambassador's ship of Spain. This is the thing that bothers me.

Senator, you have the reputation of being the hardest working senator because you tend to a lot of minute details in the Senate. And you once said, I place my office ahead of my family, my church, and everything else. Did you really say that? You really feel that way? About your job? Yes. Robert E. Lee said that duty is the sublimest word of the most sublime word in the English language. I feel that way about it. I think that even the American people, which include my wife, my daughters, elect me to an office. I have a duty to give my best and to give my all. And that's the way I've approached it. Thanks again, Senator Bird, for coming here and joining us for this initial program in the new Washington Straight Talk series. Washington Straight Talk. From Washington, N. Pack has brought you Assistant Senate Majority Leader Robert Bird, with N. Pack correspondent

Paul Duke. Next week, on Washington Straight Talk, the Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, Alan Greenspan, with Hobart Rowan, financial editor of the Washington Post. Production funding provided by Public Television Stations, the Ford Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This has been a production of N. Packed, a division of GWETA.