Washington Straight Talk; Mills

Willber Mills, Vice Chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee studying President Nixon's Tax Returns. Tonight, on Washington's straight talk, Congressman Wilber Mills, Democrat of Arkansas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and one of the most powerful members of the United States Congress. Answers questions from NPAC correspondent Paul Duke. Congressman Mills, the investigators for your committee, which has been looking into the President's taxes, are expected to report their findings in a day or two with a recommendation that the President pay additional tax. Just how much additional tax might it be? I have no idea. I must have just how much the staff may decide is due and additional what the President has already paid. I have studiously refrained from trying to learn

of any of the details of this investigation from the head of the staff or any member of the staff. I have only discussed those items which have been in the public knowledge before my discussion, such as the question of the gift of the papers, the sale of the San Clemente property, and so on, things that have been wrote out prior to any statement by me. I have understood that there were other areas that the staff was looking into. What decisions the staff will make, I have no idea. I have no idea as to how much the staff may feel, additional taxes to the President owes. There have been reports that it could run as high as a half a million dollars. I've heard those reports. I have not made any prediction myself because I think it's centered along said the other day that it's idle guessing to say that it is any figure until you know what the staff has developed. Do you think that could be a realistic figure? I have no idea. I just don't know.

You've suggested Mr. Mills that the public would be outraged by the findings of the committee. Why do you believe that? Well, I've said that I thought the public would be shocked more by the report of our committee if we report the President owes additional tax than anything that the public has learned through Watergate because in no instance in connection with the Watergate investigation has there been any evidence deduced that the President knew anything about the original break-in or the cover-up or anything that's related to Watergate. Everyone that's testified has made that quite clear. But here you have a matter that the taxpayer normally is quite informed about and that's the payment of taxes and everybody wants everybody else to pay his fair part if he's expected to pay his fair part in the first instance. So I say I think it's more knowledgeable to people what we're talking about and that any of us who happen to be in an elected office found not to have paid our taxes to the full extent

would cause a shock on the part of the American people. Well is it your feeling then that the American people or a substantial part of the American people will conclude that the President cheated on his tax returns? I don't think it makes a lot of difference what we say. There are big lows who will feel certainly that the President did cheat on his tax. Others that the President like any other taxpayer just took deductions that he thought were proper and it turns out they're not proper. Actually most of your investigation carried on among average taxpayers by the RS has to do with whether or not the taxpayer has taken a proper deduction or not taken it properly. It's the deduction that generally gets the taxpayer into an investigation, not the declaration of his total income. Is it your conclusion that the President did improperly take a number of deductions? Well I haven't reached a conclusion yet. The staff apparently has. Maybe the staff has

I don't know but the question involving the gift is simple. The gift for Vice President Trump. That's right for the National Archives. Dead the President complete the gift prior to July 25, 1969 when the Congress denied the opportunity on the part of any taxpayer to take a deduction for such gifts. That's the question. That's a factual question. The President's lawyers I'm sure will contend that he did. Perhaps the staff will reach a conclusion that he didn't. I don't know what the staff will conclude. Well there have been reports Congressman Mills that the staff has concluded that a deed which would have supported the President's contention that he had legally turned over the papers to the National Archives and thus could have accepted the write-off for the papers that this deed never existed. Well I've understood that and I've read this also and heard it in television. I haven't

gotten it from the staff. That the contention of the President's lawyers is that there wasn't a deed completed prior to July 25, 1969. There's no question about the papers having been transmitted to the National Archives sometime I think in April of 1969. But that isn't sufficient apparently to complete a gift. You have to also sign the deed of commands. It's said and I've heard this that the original deed which was completed prior to July 25 was supplanted by one completed after July 25, 1969. I've read where the staff people have asked for the original deed to be presented to the staff people and the original deed seems to have been torn up lost or something according to the President's lawyers. To me it's just in Congress that a lawyer would destroy such a paper. Most

lawyers I know even keep their own notes, their working papers so to speak as well as a deed and I might say this parenthetically most of the things that have been lost in the past if found would have perhaps endured to the detriment of the President. But here is one document that it found would be of tremendous advantage to the President. It may come up later I don't know but so far I understand the original deed has not been provided the staff of the joint committee. Well do you feel that the never existed perhaps? I have no idea. I have no idea. One crucial question in all of this Congressman Mills is did the President have knowledge of what his tax lawyers were doing? These are things that the staff is looking into to try to find out and I've read in the paper and heard on television that two of his lawyers who helped to prepare his return would over the return with him

before he signed it. I have no way of knowing that I've read and heard. I don't know what the facts are. You suggested some time ago that the White House voluntarily pay additional tax before your committee comes out with his conclusions. Now this apparently has been rejected by the White House. Is the White House now fighting the conclusions of the committee? I'm not certain that they're fighting the conclusions because I don't think the White House knows what the conclusions are any more than I do. But it is true that I suggested that if the President found after consulting lawyers and accountants that had nothing to do with his tax return initially that they felt he owed additional tax they'd have fallen amended return because it's embarrassing to me as a member of the committee. I'm sure it is the other members of the committee. They have to report that the President owes even a dollar of additional tax. That's embarrassing to us. I was perhaps being selfish in my suggestion trying to get myself and others off that spot and I think it's only the fair thing to

do if that is the conclusion. But now his lawyers have told me that they didn't want him to file an amended return because in each instance that's under investigation by the staff and the committee there is two sides one in his favor and one against him. So why should he then from the point of view of his lawyers determine in a controversial matter that has two sides to it that he owes additional tax? So they are a point. They are disputing the findings. They will I'm sure dispute any findings that the staff may come up with involving additional tax. I don't know but I would assume they would taking that position. But even so do you still expect the President to pay the additional fact? The President said explicitly in his letter to us asking us to look over his returns and arrive at a conclusion as to whether or not he owed additional tax is that if we made such a decision

he would abide by our decision. He said specifically in the letter addressed to me at that time I was chairman of the joint committee. Have you have you been meeting with the White House lawyers to discuss this dispute? I've had only one meeting with the White House lawyers that's Mr. Campbell and Mr. Rose. They came to advise me as to why the President was not filing an amended return as I had recommended that he do. And after I talk to them I could see their point as lawyers of urging him not to give in at that point when there was a difference of opinion with respect to all of these deductions. Is there any prospect Mr. Mills of a last minute compromise with the White House on this? I don't know of any effort by anyone to reach a compromise. Certainly I've not been approached with any such thought in mind. I've not approached anyone to do it. One of the White House Aids Bryce Harlow has accused you of conducting a campaign of guilt by a new endo against the President. Well Bryce has called me. I've been with Bryce

since then and we're still friends. We've known each other since I've been in the Congress. He served with Congressman West Disney when he first came here and worked in the little library room right off the house floor and I became acquainted with him after I've been here two or three days. So I've known him this is better than 35 years that I've known him and it would take a lot more than such a statement by Bryce Harlow for me to fall out with him. Mr. Mills will the committee's findings on the President's taxes that he is liable for more taxes? Will this increase the possibility that the House will impeach the President? The House Judiciary Committee will receive a copy of whatever report the committee files. The President will receive one and the public will be made known of the report. We'll have knowledge of the report. We'll file it in other words for public information. It would be up to the House Judiciary Committee to decide whether or not this would be included as one of the articles for impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee could reach a conclusion

regarding whether there was any fraud committed by anyone in connection with the development of the return. I will certainly urge the joint committee to do only the one thing that we've been asked to do, ascertain whether the President owes additional tax and if so how much. But no conclusion of fraud. No, it would be unfair to the Senate members of the committee to put them in the position of having prejudged the matter, I think, since they must serve as members of a jury in the Senate, in the event that the House votes up the articles of impeachment. All the Senate is doing is serving as a jury under the leadership of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when the trial actually occurs. They are to hear both sides of the arguments and so on, just as a jury does in the normal case. So I think it's unfair to them to ask them to prejudge the situation this far ahead, perhaps any vote on impeachment.

But since you have suggested that the American public is going to be shocked by the report of your committee, can't you deduce from that that the President will be damaged, and this could enhance the prospects that he will be impeached? Why don't there is any question about, as I said earlier, anyone in elective office being damaged if it's developed that he hasn't paid all the tax that he's entitled to pay regardless of the reason why he hasn't paid all that tax, because people understand this matter. I know they do, and it's only my opinion that they'd be shocked more than they have been by Watergate, because I think people many times have passed off Watergate on the basis that it's just a political activity or maneuver. Most any politician would do the same thing if he needed to or had the chance to do it. I don't know whether that's true or not, but at least I've heard people say that. Congressman Mill Speaker Albert said here on this program last Monday night that he felt the President was losing ground in his battle against impeachment. How do you feel? Well, I think the Speaker would know more about that than I, because I haven't had an

opportunity to discuss with members of this issue, as I'm sure he has. I would assume that he's right, though I could not tell you, as a matter of fact, that I know this isn't the situation. Some people suggest that the mood in the House is dramatically changed in the past two weeks with many more predictions now that the House will impeach the President. Do you detect a change in the House? I do. I think there is more support in the House for the articles of impeachment than was earlier the case. Some people who have said in the past that they would not vote on the basis of the information they had for the articles of impeachment now say they will or that they have an open mind. I think that results from what the membership feels is lack of cooperation on the part of the White House in working with some of the committees that have been looking in to the President's activities. The House Judiciary Committee, for instance, has said publicly that there was delay in giving material to that committee

that it needed and so on. It's this, I think, more than anything else that may have intensified the feeling within the House and brought about more votes for the articles of impeachment. Do you feel the President's tactics in taking his fight to the country and in attacking the House Judiciary Committee? Do you feel that these tactics are backfiring? I think so. I can well understand why the President would do it because he's fighting the last-ditch battle, apparently, in his own thinking. But sometimes you can say things in answers to questions or in your public statements that offend somebody and I think some of the members of the House may have been offended by some of the things that the President has said as well as some of the things the White House has done. The White House has been counting on strong support among Southern Democrats to blunt the impeachment drive. Now, you're a leader among Southern Democrats. Do you feel that this support is now diminishing?

I think it is. I'm not really in the position, however, to know positively of it. I've talked to some of my colleagues from the Northeast and West as well as the South. There's no doubt in my mind that there are enough votes, really, and I can't prove it for the articles of impeachment in the House. The great worry I have is that a majority in the House vote the articles of impeachment. That only a majority in the Senate then votes for impeachment. And I think that will follow, though two-thirds may not. Now, where are we under that circumstance with a majority in both branches of the Congress having found the President at fault? And yet he remains in office. Now, how can he exercise under that circumstance if it develops the type of leadership that the President must exercise? This, I think, would be a terrible traumatic experience through which we would go. You have suggested that the President resign. Do you still feel that way?

Only I have suggested that only if it appears that this circumstance would exist, that I've just described, or if, actually, he is to be impeached. And I have suggested that if he wanted to do that, that I would make every effort to try to remove him from any later persecution or prosecution. Are those who contend that the resignation way would not be the democratic way that I would have the impeachment process and wouldn't the country and wouldn't the President be entitled to a bill of particulars? Oh, you can make that argument certainly. I'm not overlooking that. And that is the normal way you do these things if you had a judge involved or someone else subject to impeachment. But here we're talking about the President of the United States and the impeachment proceedings if they are thrown out over a period of time as I'm sure there will be. We'll present

the most disruptive and divisive force that we've had, I think, in the United States since the Civil War. There are people who feel that the President is being made a scapegoat. There are people who are still loyal to him and the public. And that's why I've said in our little job that if we find the owes one dollar, that'll offend some people. If we find the owes $100,000, that'll offend a lot more because they think he owes more than that. So there's no way we can win on the joint committee in this issue. And I mentioned that solely to point out the divisiveness that would occur with respect to anybody voting for or against impeachment in the Senate. Are you ready to vote for impeachment? Not yet. I've got to see the evidence. I've got to know what the Judiciary Committee finds, what it presents in the way of articles. I still believe that there has to be some either commission or lack of action of some sort that is the equivalent of a crime or

a misdemeanor or something. Mr. Mills, last year, the Wall Street Journal ran a story suggesting that you had leaned on the Internal Revenue Service when it was investigating several big shoe companies. And as a result, several shoe companies were saved more than $100 million in taxes. That's right. That isn't true at all. The truth of the matter is I did call in the IRS because they had been holding up a decision, had nothing to do with the shoe people that had to do with the chain operation that existed in Arkansas and some of the other states are on Arkansas. But this matter had been held up for years. No decision had been made and the Congress had corrected this to provide that over a period of time. There had to be a consolidated return filed by any holding company owning any other sub-corporations that applied across the board. And we were graduating that in. That was one of the actions

that we took in 1969 in tax reform. We said specifically in our report that our action was not to be taken retroactively by the IRS, but for them to go ahead and make their decisions under the provisions of the then existing law prior to our change and get the job behind them. Well, I had occasion to talk to the IRS on one occasion about exercising a degree of speed that they had not shown in the past in reaching these conclusions. It had nothing to do with the shoe industry. It had to do with one operation in Arkansas where there had been some 10 or 12 years delay with respect to the taxpayers liability. That I will oppose any time for an individual corporation or anybody else that pays taxes. You can't run your own affairs, you can't run a business, and have the IRS holding in a balance of decision of any of your tax liabilities of any 10 or 12 years. It's not fair. Nonetheless, doesn't this indicate that if you're big enough and you're powerful enough,

you can go to a Wilbur Mills and seek his help in a tax case, whereas if you're an ordinary citizen, you can't do more ordinary citizens talk to me about their taxes than any of the larger taxpayers do. I'm not going to do anything under any circumstances for any taxpayer that I don't think is really not just in his interest, but in the public interest. Just as I did for this constituent at home, we've had all of these chain operations who incidentally is no longer alive, but this was not done for any shoe people. It just happened that there were shoe people who were involved. But bear this in mind now, that the committee in 1969 started the process of eliminating each of these corporations filing an individual return. That was the previous law. And I understood that in one instance, one holding company that had as many as 500 of these sub-corporations, well, this was quite a blow because all of them operated at only about a 22% rate on the first $25,000 of income. But when you

threw them together and had one return as we did in 1969, then most of the profits of the chain were subject to the 48% rate. And that's quite a blow to them. So I say they didn't get what they wanted when they were before the committee. Another one of the Watergate related issues involves the contributions of the milk industry and the milk industry, apparently contributed substantially to your presidential campaign. They did some $45,000 as I remember from all of the various cooperatives that gave money to the presidential campaign. Why did they give so much to your candidate? This was all listed and reported to the General Accounting Office. Now, there were some monies that apparently according to the right report that were given long before I became a candidate, either to promote me to be a candidate or for some other reason, none of which I had any knowledge. And if I'd had any knowledge, certainly it would have not been received. But I was unaware

of what was going on in the so-called draft mills period. I'd do assume the responsibility for what went on after I appointed a campaign manager and said that I would go out and try to get uncommitted, unelected delegates to the convention. The milk people have always been friendly with me in my state. I've got a number of them in three counties in my state who operate these great adaries. They've had a hard time of it in the past. The feed they buy for their cows has gone up much faster percentage-wise than has their milk gone up. I've been aware of their problems. I've talked to them. They've brought in as many as 50 dairy farmers at a time to see me either in Arkansas or here so they could discuss the problems. The president is reported to have said that he finally did what he did in 7-1 as a result of pressure brought to bear on him by a number of us who were Democrats, Mansfield and Albert

included. I never talked to the president about this. I did talk to Schultz generally about it. I met in the Speaker's office one time with Clark Montgomery when he was at the White House. But the speaker and I didn't do the talking. The people that we had asked Clark to come to here did the talking namely the dairy farmers themselves. We're describing to him their problems and why they thought they could not remain in the business of producing milk if there was not some better price provided them. This was the substance of the meeting. And I don't consider that pressure by any means because I didn't twist somebody's arm and tell somebody that they had to do this or else. I've never done that. Just Mills let me ask you about your committee, the Ways and Means Committee, and you're dealing with the oil industry. A great many people feel that the committee has really a backtrack in terms of levying any kind of stiff tax against the oil industry at a time when the oil industry is making record profits. Why is this so? That's true because

the committee adopted the other day a provision that would allow the so-called windfall profits which would be subjected to a rate if not paid out in some way for exploration or further production of 85 percent to be plowed back the total of it. Now this assumes that it will be possible for each and every operator to plow back all those profits into exploration or development of new fields of oil or gas. Well that I don't think anybody can do in the first three or four years of the operation of the program. But the committee will reconsider this if we haven't done what is in the public interest. I think the committee will do it before we conclude our efforts now bearing in mind that the committee has voted to eliminate the depletion allowance on oil and gas over a five year period. And this I think is a very significant step. It is of course opposed by the people in the oil industry who

say that now they need more and more money to develop new resources because it costs more and more money to drill these deeper holes and that they have a great deal of difficulty in the financing of these operations if they don't have depletion allowance and some of these other things that we're taking away. I have just about 30 seconds I want to ask you one quick question. What is the prospect now for a tax cut this year? The stimulus of the tax cut I think we'll have to wait until the middle of the year to get a better idea of where the economy is headed. I wouldn't rule it out. Certainly the people are anxious for one so I would not rule it out. Thank you very much Congressman Mills for coming here tonight for this conversation. Thank you. From Washington, N. Pack has brought you Congressman Wilbur Mills, Democrat of Arkansas with N. Pack correspondent Paul Duke. Next week on Washington Strait Talk, George Meene, president of the AFL CIO is interviewed by syndicated columnist and Washington editor for the conservative

weekly The National Review, George Will. This program has been made possible by a grant from the Ford Foundation. This has been a production of N. Packed, a division of GWETA.