>> the committee will be in order. the committee on criminal justice, the house committee on judiciary welcomes the president of the united states, gerald r lord. we are priests -- gerald r. ford. we appreciate his willingness to answer our questions in this inquiry. and also to except inquiries on the subcommittee and to carry out the response bill is assigned to it by the representatives. perhaps, the first documented appearance of a president of the united states before a committee or a subcommittee of the united states congress. now the chair understands, mr. president, that you have a commitment at noon, as of the house convened at 11:30 a.m. today, and given these to them

constraints -- these time to his race will do the best we can. the question he will be done by subcommittee members only, and under the five-minute rule. president ford's appearance demonstrates his commitment to open and-- to be candid to the american people. it is absolutely vital for the restoration of the american trust and for the institution of the political body, and it is support for the future administration. in parisaper le monde about therote sweeping and irrevocable pardon by a gerald ford. they parted was seen as a way of preventing congress and the law force from conducting an

investigation. nixontember 8, president offered a full and complete -- president ford offered a full and complete pardon to president nixon read several questions have and raise related to the circumstances of the pardon, and whether a result of the pardon and says with agreement -- and subsequent agreements were related to discussions with the former president. more than 70 members of the house of representatives, republicans and democrats alike, have sponsored bills and -- resolutions seeking clarification. these bills are currently pending in the subcommittee. among these bills are the two privileged revolution -- resolution bills entered today. and the second is

put forth by representing conyers. forwarded towere the president, following an exchange of correspondence, and the president offered to appear here as he voluntarily does today. that we undertake is made easier by our personal friendship and our common background. faithfully perform our task, we must lay aside personal relationships and considerations. we are not here to talk about but to our responsibility to checks and balances and the separation of power placed upon us, and to speak and reveal the truth to

the american people about the workings of their government by cooperation, if possible, by confrontation, if necessary. i hope the american people, as well as the congress, appreciates the importance of president ford's appearance. we will do all we can to resolve the questions relating to the pardon. i am convinced the issue of the party will not be behind us and tell this record is complete. the chair recognizes the opening speech. >> mr. president, as chairman of the committee on the judiciary, i want to welcome you here. not only is the chief executive of this great country, but as a grand person who has served with us for so many years. this historic occasion and your voluntary appearance here only demonstrates once more the great institution that we are both proud to be a part of.

andow that your efforts coming before this committee voluntarily will assist in the subcommittee and this committee within the judiciary, in meeting its responsibility. and with that mr. president, i am going to relinquish the responsibility to the chairman of the subcommittee and the members of the subcommittee. they give are coming here. >> the chair -- thank you for coming here. >> the chair recognizes the next bigger. as ranking minority member, and the members of the subcommittee, have appeared here this morning only in our capacity, sitting at the foot of the subcommittee on our spect inside, whether than in our familiar places. we do notrangement,

displace the chairman of the but chairman wrote rodino and i will leave the members of the subcommittee responsibility to discuss. ours possibility will be limited to our opening statements. other members of the judiciary committee who are not members of the subcommittee, some of whom today, may here watch. has a fewmittee resolutions of inquiry which were introduced in the house of representatives. the first was introduced by the

chairman, and by a resolution of a great, the chairman rick quest that the president -- the chairman request that the president give certain factual information to assist the house in its legislative functions. power is notdon subject to legislative control, i suppose that a question can be raised as to whether a resolution of inquiry might legitimately lie on this since the question itself cannot resolve -- be resolved, by the legislative branch. event, the mere introduction of a resolution does not impose a duty on the executive to respond, and neither does committee consideration. either resolution would be

house ofif the representatives would adopt it, and even then submitting factual information would only be called for upon request. the president of united states before the subcommittee does not violate the separation of power the tween the executive and legislative branches of government. between the executive and legislative branches of government. you are meeting with the subcommittee, mr. president, on capitol hill, and it is symbolic of us working together. but you do not,, mr. president, in response to any command of the subcommittee nor in any response to its request, for it made no demand upon you or no request to your presence. your presence is entirely voluntary on your part.

your presence should not be construed to mean that you will appear before this or any other committee of congress in the president, and no president in the future will be will be to inquire -- expected to respond to any inquiry. mr. president, i cannot adequately express to you my personal feelings of warm friendship, and my sense of a high honor to do this with the committee in meeting with us here today. thank you, mr. president. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. president, i too, join in welcoming you here and your voluntary appearance. will willingly answer

questions regarding the pardon of president nixon, and his questions have been presented by certain members of congress and the people of united's america. they have a right to know as far as this may be possible. you're a pure is here has been voluntary and on your own motion, and i -- your appearance here has been voluntary and on your own motion, and i commend you. example of a splendid cooperation between the executive and legislative branches of our government, which i hope may be followed many times in the future. mr. president, i have known you for almost 10 years, and in that time, i have always found you to be a man of frankness and candor, and man whose words one would have complicit trust. this spirit that i know

you'll answer the questions that have been raised about the pardon of mr. nixon, and i know this committee will receive your answers your it thank you. -- your answers. thank you. >> mr. president, you have an opening statement, and we welcome you here today. thank you very much, mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee. we meet here today to review the facts and the circumstances that were the basis for my pardon of former president nixon on september 8, 1974. i want very much to have those facts and those circumstances known. the american people want to know them. members of congress also want to know them. the two congressional resolutions of inquiry now before the subcommittee serve these purposes.

that's why i have volunteered to a peer before you this morning, and i welcome and thank you for this opportunity to speak to the questions raised by the resolutions. my appearance at this hearing of your distinguished subcommittee on the house judiciary committee, has been looked upon as an unusual historic aback, one that has no firm -- historic event, one that has no firm precedent. yet i am here not to make history, but to report history. that you are interested in covers so recent a. hat it is not -- so recent a period, that it is not understood. we hope to achieve the purpose that i had for granting the pardon when i did. the purpose was to change our national focus.

i wanted to do all that i could to shift our attention from the pursuit of a fallen president to the pursuit of the urgent needs of a rising nation. our nation is under the severest of challenges now to employ its full energy and efforts in the pursuit of a sound and growing economy at home and a stable and peaceful world around us. we would needlessly he diverted from meeting those challenges if to remainople were sharply divided over whether to punish aring to trial, former who has already condemned to suffer long a deeply in the shame and disgrace run upon the office that he held. surely we are not a revengeful people. we have often demonstrated a

readiness to feel compassion and act out of mercy. recordople, have a long of forgiving even those who have been our country's most instructive foes. yet to forgive is not to forget the lessons of evil, in whatever ways evil has operated. the pardon granted to the former president will not cause us to forget the evils of the watergate-type offenses, or to get the lessons that we have thated of a government deceived its supporters and treat its opponents as enemies, and that was never, ever be tolerated. power entrusted to the president through the constitution of the united states has a long history, and --t on presidents going back

precedents is going back centuries. the power has been used some time, as alexander hamilton saw its purpose, in seasons of insurrection, when a well-timed offer of pardon of insurgents or rebels could ensure tranquility to the commonwealth. it may never be possible afterwards to recall. other times it has been applied to one person in an act of grace. it exempts the individual on who it was bestowed, for a crime that he has committed. when a pardon is granted, it also represents the determination of the ultimate authority that the public byfare will be better served inflicting less than what the judgment sets.

however, the constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders. thus, i am firm in my convictions that as president, i did have the authority to proclaim a pardon to the former president when i did. i can also understand why people are moved to question my actions. some may still question my authority. but i find much of the disagreement on when i should've acted when i did. many people have concluded, as i do, that the pardon was in the best interest of the country, because it came at a time when best serve the purposes that i have stated. this hearing, mr. chairman, in the spirit of cooperation, to respond to your

inquiries. i do so with the understanding that the subjects to be covered are defined and limited by the questions as they appear in the resolutions before you. but even then, we may not mutually agree on what information falls within the proper scope of a gory. i feel the response of -- of inquiry. i feel the responsibility of our preservet that it must withree of secrecy internal communications. members may be able to work under conditions of confidentiality. earlier this year the united states senate passed a resolution which reads, in part, evidence under the control or in the possession of the congress of the united

states can come in the mandate or process be taken from such control or possession but by its permission." nixon,united states v. the supreme court unanimously recognized confidentiality within the executive branch, which the court determined could only be invaded for overwriting reasons of the fifth and sixth amendments of the constitution. as i have stated before, mr. chairman, my own view is that the right of the executive privilege is to be exercised with caution and with restraint. when i was a member of congress, i did not hesitate to question the right of the executive innch to claim a privilege supplying information to the congress, even if i thought the claim of privilege was being

abused. now, did then, and i do respect the right of executive privilege when it protects the right given to a president in the expectation that it will not he disposed. otherwise, mr. chairman, no president could any longer count on receiving free and frank information from the people who could help him to reach his official decisions. also, it is certainly not my intention or even within my detract on this occasion or any other instance of the generally recognized right of the president to preserve the confidentiality of the internal discussion or communications whenever it is properly within his constitutional responsibility to do so. are within the authority of any president while

he is in office, and i believe may be exercised as well by a past president with the information thought pertain -- sought pertains to when he served in office. i bring up, mr. chairman, and these important points, before going into the balance of my statement, so there will be no question that i remain mindful of the rights of confidentiality, which a president may want to exercise in copious circumstances. however, i do not regard my answers as i have prepared them for the purposes of this inquiry, to be prejudicial to these rights in the present circumstances or to constitute a tocedent for responding congressional inquiries different in nature or scope under different circumstances. accordingly, mr. chairman, i shall proceed to explain as

fully as i can in my present answers, the facts and the circumstances covered by the present resolution of inquiries. i shall start with an excellent nation of these events which were the first to occur in the. covered by the inquiry before i became president. then i will respond to the separate questions as they are numbered in-house resolution 13 67, and as they specifically eriod afterhe p i became president. ask about 1367 certain conversations that may have occurred over a. period that includes during the time when i was vice president.

no conversation about a possible pardon occurred until august 1 and second, 1974. mr. chairman, since the beginning of the watergate investigation, i had consistently made statements and speeches about president nixon's either planning the break-in or either participating in the cover-up, and i sincerely believe he was innocent. even in the closing months before the president resigned, he made public statements that made adverse revelations so far that did not constitute an impeachable offense. under increasing criticism. but i still believe and believed them to be true based on the facts as i knew them. ofthe early morning

74, i had august 1, 19 a meeting and my vice presidential office with alexander m. hague, jr, chief of staff for president nixon. i was told in a general way about fears are rising regarding additional taped evidence to be delivered to the judge on monday, august 5, 1974. i was told that there could be , which, when disclosed to the house of representatives, would likely tip the boat in impeachment. however, i was given no indication that this development would lead to any change in president nixon's plan to oppose the impeachment vote. then, shortly afternoon, general requested another

appointment as quickly as possible. he came to my office at about 3:30 p.m. for a meeting that was to last approximately three quarters of an hour. only then that i learn of the damaging nature of the 1972,sation on june 23, in one of the tapes, that was judge, and ithe described his meeting because at one point, it did include references to a possible pardon for mr. next and cop -- mr. two housewhich these resolutions are directed. the entire meeting covered other subjects dealing with a totally new situation resulting from the critical evidence on the tapes of june 23, 1972. told me that he

had been told of a new and damaging evidence by lawyers on the white house staff who had first-hand knowledge of what was on the tapes. the substance of this conversation was that the new ,isclosure would be devastating even catastrophic, in so far as president nixon was concerned. learned what he had from the conversations on the tape, he wanted to know whether i was prepared to assume the presidency within a very short. of time. and whether -- within a very ime, andriod of t whether to make recommendations to the president as to what he should now follow. adequately inss words how shocked and how stunned i was by this

unbelievable revelation. first was the sudden awareness that i was likely to become president under the most troubled circumstances, and secondly, the realization that orse new revelations disclosures ran completely counter to the position that i had taken for months in that i believed the president was not guilty of any impeachable offense. general hague in his wentrsation in my office on to tell me of discussions that went on in the white house with those who knew of this evidence. for my hague asked assessment of the whole situation. he wanted my thoughts about the timing of the resignation. that decision were to be

made about how to do it and how to accomplish an orderly change of the administration. schedulingd what problem there might be, and what the early organizational problem would be. general hague outlined for me the situation as he saw it, and the different views in the white house as to the courses of action that might be available and which were being advanced by various people around him on the white house staff. as i recall, there were beingent course considered. one wasne was that suggest that we write it out and that the impeachment take its course through the senate, or others were urging resignation's sooner or later. i was told that some people backed the first course.

aher people backed resignation, but not with the same views as to how and when it should take place. on the resignation issue, there there was put forth a number of options that general hague reviewed with me, and i recalled his conversation with very is options being one, thed, including president temporarily stepping aside under the 25th amendment, number two, the laying of the resigination until further along in the appeasement process, and number three, trying first to settle for a censured vote as a means of avoiding either impeachment or a the to resign, four, question of whether the president could pardon himself, five, pardoning various , and thatdefendants

himself, following his resignation. the rush of events placed an urgency on what was to be done. it became even more critical in view of a long impeachment trial which was expected to last possibly four months or longer. the impact of the senate trial the handling of possible international crises, the economic situations here at home, and the market slowdown in the decision making process in the federal government, were all factors to be considered, and were discussed. general hague wanted my views on the various courses of action, as well as my attitude on the option of resignation. however, he indicated that he was not advocating any of the options. i inquired as to what was the

pardon power, and he answered that it was his understanding from a white house lawyer that a president did have the authority to grant a pardon, even before any seminal action had been taken against an individual, but obviously, he was in no position to have any opinion on the matter of law. point, the at this question clearly before me was under the circumstances, what course of action could i recommend that would be in the best interest of the country? hague that i had to have some time to think, further, that i wanted to talk and i alsonclair, wanted to talk to my wife before giving a response. i had consistently and firmly held the view previously that in

no way whatsoever could i recommend it are publicly or privately any steps by the president that might cause eight in my status of vice president. if ald become president vacancy occurred, and as vice would not do or say anything that might affect the president's tenure in office. therefore, i certainly would not be ready under these new circumstances to make any recommendations about resignation without having adequate time to consider further what i should properly do. shortly after 8:00 the next clair camemes staint to my office. spell of theid not details, there was no question in my mind, that he consider

these revelations to be so damaging the impeachment in the , and thata certainty conviction in the senate was a high probability. if he asked mr. st. clair knew of any other new or damaging evidence besides that 1972 tape, he said no. not been the had source of any opinion about the presidential pardon powers. matter, ights on the was determined not to make any recommendations for president nixon on his resignation. i had not given any advice or recommendations in my conversations with his aid. also did not want anyone who might talk to the president

to suggest that i had come with intentions to do so. for that reason, mr. chairman, i decided i should call general hague on the afternoon of august 2. i did make the call late that afternoon and told him i wanted him to understand that i had no intention of recommending what president nixon should do about andgning or not resigning, that nothing that we had talked about in the previous afternoon could be given any consideration in what ever decision the president might make. general hague told me he was in full agreement with this position. my travel schedule called for me to make an appearance in mississippi and louisiana over saturday, sunday, and part of monday on august 3, four, and

five. in the previous eight months, i had repeatedly stated my opinion that the president not be found guilty of any impeachable offense. any change of my stated views or even refusal to comment further, i feared, would lead the press the conclusion that i now wanted to see the president resign. to avoid an impeachment vote in the house, and probable conviction in the senate, so for those reasons, i remained firm in my answers to press questions during that trip and repeated by belief in the president's innocence of impeachable offense. not until i return to washington, did i learn that president nixon was to release the new evidence late on monday, august 5, 1974. at about the same time, i was

notified of the president that he had called a cabinet meeting on tuesday morning, august 6, 1974. at that meeting in the cabinet room, i announced that i was making no recommendations to the president as to what he should do in light of the new evidence. i paid no recommendations to him either at that meeting or any time after that. in summary, mr. chairman, i assure you that there was never at any time any agreement whatsoever concerning a pardon to mr. and if he were to nash mr. nixon if he were to resign and i were to become president. mr. chairman, i am turning out to house resolution 1367, and asks resolution 1367

whether i or my representatives had any knowledge of formal criminal charges against richard m. nixon, and the answer is no. i had no idea that the grand jury investigating the watergate break-in and cover-up had wanted to charge mr. and send as a as anspirator -- mr. nixon co-conspirator. i believe that it serve the staff and the members of the committee in the development of its report on the proposed articles of impeachment. beyond what was disclosed in the publications of the judiciary committee on the subject, and additional evidence released by 5,sident nixon on it august

after september 6, , a copy ofy -- 1974 a memorandum. this was furnished to my counsel and later made public during a press briefing at the white house on september 10, 1974. i have supplied the subcommittee with a copy of this memorandum. mattersrandum lists still under investigation, have someuote,, "may direct connection to activities under which mr. nixon was personally involved." the watergate cover-up was not included in this list, and the

alleged cover-up is only listed as being the subject of a separate memorandum not furnished to me. which areatters listed in the memorandum, it is stated that none of them at the moment, rises to the level of our ability to prove even a probable criminal violation i .r. nixon -- by mr. nixon to thes related possibility of criminal charges by mr. nixon while he had been in office. the second question in the resolution asks whether alexander haig referred to or discussed a pardon with mr. nixon or his representatives at any time during the week of 74, or any19 subsequent time. my answer to that question is

not to my knowledge. if any such discussions did occur, they could not have been a factor in my decisions to grant a pardon when i did, because i was not aware of them. question three and four of house with then 1367 deal first and all subsequent references to or discussions of a pardon for richard m. nixon and him and any of his representatives or aids. i have already described at length what discussions took 1974, on august 1 and 2, and how these discussions brought no recommendations or commitment on my part. these were the only discussions related to questions three and four before i became president. also to for late subsequent discussions. relates alsoour

to subsequent discussions. in the discussion of the subject of a pardon of former president nixon and anyone representing him. also, no one on my staff brought up the subject until the day before my first press conference on august 28, 1974. advised that i was questions on the subject might be raised by media reporters at the press conference. as the press conference proceeded -- or proceeded, the about thetion asked pardon, as did other later questions. my answer to those questions, i took the position that while i

was the final authority on this matter, i expected to make no commitment, one way or the other, depending on what the special prosecutor and the court would do. however, i also stated that i believed that the general view of the american people was despair. was to spare the former president of a criminal trial. afterwards i became greatly concerned that if mr. nixon prosecution and trial were prolonged, the passions of generated over a long. longme with serious -- period of time would seriously prevent our country from healing from the wounds of our past. if itld not be effective had to operate in the atmosphere of having a former president under prosecution and criminal trial.

each step along the way, i was deeply concerned of what would become a public spectacle and the topic of wide public debate and controversy. as i have before stated publicly, these concerns led me for my own legal counsel ull write ofy f pardon would be in this situation. and i at the special prosecutor what criminal actions, if any, would be brought against the former president? i also asked how long his trial would take. givenn as i have been this information, mr. chairman, i authorize my counsel to tell herbert j. miller, the attorney , that ird m. nixo nixon

would grant a pardon to the former president. when on september 4, 1974, mr. becker had been asked, with my concurrence, to take on a temporary special assignment to assist at a time when no one else of my selection had yet been appointed to the legal staff of the white house. the fourth question, mr. chairman, in the resolution, also asks about negotiations with mr. nixon and his representatives on the subject of a pardon of the former president. was not, so far as i'm since her, a matter of negotiation. i realized that unless mr. nixon accepted the pardon that i was

for. grant, it would not be effective, so i certainly had no intention to proceed without knowing if it would be accepted. otherwise, i put no condition by granting of a pardon which required any negotiations. although negotiations had been started earlier and were conducted through september 6 concerning white house records of the prior administration, i did not make any agreements on that subject regarding a condition of a pardon. to anrcumstances leading initial agreement on the presidential record are not covered by the resolution for the subcommittee. therefore, i have mentioned discussions on that subject with mr. nixon's attorney, only to show that they were related in kind to the pardon discussion, but were not a basis for my

decision to grant a pardon to the former president. sixth, and seventh questions of house resolution 13 67, asked whether i consulted with certain persons before making my pardon decisions. i did not consult at all with attorney general saxby on the subject of a pardon for mr. nixon. on the conversation subject was vice presidential nominee nelson rockefeller, and to report to him on september 6, 1974, and that i was planning to grant the pardon. joroskyprosecutor to was contacted on my behalf to -- on myiscussion behalf. whatiscussion was about

potential criminal charges would be brought against mr. nixon. there was a copy of the memorandum that i have already referred to and have furnished to the subcommittee. the opinion of the special prosecutor was how long a delay would follow. and's event of mr. neck's -- mr. nixon's indictments. from 1974, the mr. jorosportions of opinion were given. he wrote regarding the delay of a. from nine months to a year and perhaps even longer.

this was on the question of how long it would take to conduct a trial. he noted that the complexity of the jury selection made it difficult to estimate the time. of hisy of the full text opinion dated september 4, 1974, i have now furnished to the subcommittee. counsel,sult with my with benton becker, and with my , and they are also attorneys, outside of these men, serving at the time in my immediate staff, i consulted with no other attorneys or professors of law, or facts or legal authorities there he done my decision to grant a pardon to the former president. questions eight and nine of house resolution 1367 deal with the circumstances of my statement or any statement

received from mr. nixon. i asked for no confession or statement of guilt, only a statement of acceptance of a pardon when it was granted. no language was suggested or requested by anyone acting for me, to my knowledge. my counsel advised me that he had told the attorney or mr. nixon, that he believed the expressingo be one contrition, and in this fact, i was told it mr. miller concurred. pardon, innounce the saw a preliminary draft of a proposed statement from mr. nixon, but i did not regard the language from the statements as subsequently issued to be the subject of approval by me or my representatives.

the 10th question, mr. chairman, covers any report to me on mr. nixon's health by a physician or psychiatrist which led to my pardon decision. i received no such report. wasever information generally known to be at the time of my pardon decision, it was based on my own observation of his condition at the time that he resigned as president. observations reported to me who had later seen or talked to him. no such reports were by people qualified to evaluate medically the condition of mr. nixon health -- mr. nixon's health. i believe in still believe that the prosecution and the trial of the former president would have proved a serious threat to his

health, as i stated in house resolution 1370 is the other resolution of inquiry before this subcommittee. it presents no questions but asks for the full and complete facts upon which was based my decision to grant a pardon to richard m. nixon. i know of no such facts that are not covered by my answer to the question in house resolution 1367, also, subparagraphs one and four, there were no or i representations made by my or for me and none by mr. nixon a or for him on which my pardon or a decision was based. no a or --

subparagraph two, the health issue is dealt with by me in answer to questions 10 of the previous resolution. subparagraph three. information available to me about possible offenses in which mr. nixon might have been involved is covered in my answer to the first questions of the earlier resolution. in addition, in an unnumbered paragraph at the end of house resolution 13070, seeks information on possible pardons for watergate-related onchtses -- defenses, which others may have committed. i have decided that all persons requesting consideration of pardon requests should submet them through the department of justice. only when i receive information

on any request dualy filed and concerned by the pardon of attorney and justice department would i consider the matter. as yet, no such information has been received. and if it does, i will act or decline to act according to the particular circumstances presented, and not on the basis of the unique circumstances as i saw them of former president nixon. mr. chairman, by these responses to the resolutions of inquiry, i believe i have fully and fairly presented the facts and the circumstances preceding my pardon of former president nixon. in this way, i hope i have contributed to a much better understanding by the american people and the action i took to grant the pardon when i did. for having afforded me this opportunity, i do express my appreciate to you, mr. chairman,

and to mr. smith, the other members of the subcommittee and also to chairman rodino, mr. hutchinson the ranking minority committee,he full and to other distinguished members of the full committee who are present. in closing, mr. chairman, i would like to re-emphasize that i acted solely for the reasons i stated in my proclamation of september 8, 1974. and my accompanying message and that i acted out of my concern to serve the best interest of my county. then, mr. chairman, and i quote, "my concern is the immediate future of this great country." my conscious tells me it is my duty, not merely to tranquilityestic

but to use every means that i hae to ensure it." mr. chairman, i thank you and the committee members for the opportunity to make your questions. >> mr. president, we express our appreciate for your aseerns here and bringing facts that will help the american people and the congress. and some will find the answers satisfactory and others who will not. but i would hope that all your appreciate to come before the theican people and congress. the gentleman from congress? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would also like to join my colleagues in welcoming the president. i don't believe any of us could have anticipated a year ago when the president appeared as a nominee under the 25th amendment ujn --e president of teh

of the united states. and i would comment no matter how well motivated to put watergate behind us, i can only acknowledge today that several key issues in the news this morning. the president's appearance before this committee, the trial, downtown, the watergate trial itself, and even denomination of mr. rockefeller to be the vice president. occasioned by a vacancy due to watergate. all of these still command the attention of the american people, and i guess we'll have to just be patient. mr. president, you indicated that you wanted to spare mr. nixon a criminal trial. did you specifically have any other end in view in terms of protecting mr. nixon in terms of a pardon?

that is to say, whatever a pardon would spare the president, other than the criminal trial, were there any other adversities which a pardon would help mr. nixon with as you saw it? >> as i indicated in the problem proclamation i issued and in the statement i made at the time on september 8 rblingts my prime reason was for the benefit of the country, not for any benefits that might be for mr. nixon. i exercised my pardon authority under the constitution, which relates only to those criminal matters during the period from january 29, 1969, until august 9, 1974.

>> i appreciate that, mr. president. but it must have been something you foresaw, which could happen to mr. nixon which justified a pardon. if in fact you were advised, and perhaps you were not, that there was no proceeding going to be commenced against mr. nixon, that nothing would happen to him, that really a pardon may have been an empty gesture in that event. >> as i indicated, after the press press conference on august 28, where three questions were raised about the pardon, or the possibility of pardon, i asked my counsel to find out from the special prosecutor what if any charges were being considered by the special prosecutors' office. and as i indicated in my prepared statement, i received

jaworski certain information indicating that there were possible or potential criminal proceedings against mr. nixon. >> but you did not determine as a matter of fact that there was any intention to proindict with any of those matters, is that correct? >> in the memorandum i believe of september 4th from mr. jaworski prepared by mr. root, there was 10 possibilities listed. on the other hand, there was i think well known information that there was a distinct possibility of mr. nixon being indicted on the grounds of obstructing justice. >> the effect of the pardon in

terms of the 10 possible areas of investigation as you saw it at the time was to terminate those investigations as well as end any possibility of indictment on those grounds? >> well, the power of pardon does cover any criminal actions during a stipulated period. and as the pardon itself indicated, it went from the day that mr. nixon first took the oath of office until he actually resigned on august 9. >> my question is did you have reason to believe that other than the 10 areas of investigation and the cover-up that the former president might need to be protected in any other area where a possibility prosecution?al

>> i knew of no other -- of any other potential or possible criminal charges, no. >> my time has expired, mr. chairman. >> gentleman from new york, mr. smith. >> mr. president, and in regard to your answer on page 18 of your statement of whether you consulted with certain persons and in that connection -- connection with question 1367, you of h.r. stated in regard to the vice presidential nominee nelson rockefeller that your only conversation on the subject with him was to report to him on september 6, 1974, when i was planning to grant the pardon. now, the question asks whether he gave you any facts or legal

authorities, and my question is did he do so? >> nelson rockefeller did not give me any facts or legal authorities. he was in my office to discuss with me the proceedings concerning his nomination. and at the conclusion of a discussion on that matter, i felt that i should inform him of the possible or prospective action that i would be taking. but he gave me no facts, he gave me no legal advice concerning the pardon. >> mr. president, as you are -- were minority leader of the congress, before you became vice president of the united states, did you at any time discuss the wisdom or advisability of a possible presidential pardon for president nixon with president

nixon or any of his representatives or any member of the white house staff? that's within the period before you became vice president. catagoricallyis no. before i became vice president, mr. smith, i on several occasions i can't recall how many, indicated to president nixon himself that i thought he should not resign. if my memory is accurate, mr. smith, before i became vice president, there were individuals both in the congress and otherwise who were advocating that mr. nixon resign. i do recall on one or more occasions telling mr. nixon in my judgment, he should not because i thought that would be an admission of guilt and on the

information that i had at that time, i did not believe mr. nixon was guilty of any impeachable offense. >> thank you, mr. president. you touched upon your observations of president nixon's health, and i wonder whether at any time before you became vice president of the did you learn any facts about his physical or mental health which later became relevant to your decision to pardon mr. nixon? >> well, before i was vice president, i saw mr. nixon periodically coming to the white house for leadership meetings or for other reasons, and during that period, i had the distinct impression that his health was good. and i didn't see any discernible

change in my own opinion until the last day or two of his presidency. and i did notice the last time i saw him in the oval office on august 9, i thought he was drawn and possibly a little thinner. but that's the only observation i made. >> thank you. mr. president. >> gentleman from california, mr. edwards. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. president, on pages 10 and 11 of your statement, you indicate that there were some general discussions with general haig and mr. saint claire before the resignation about the pardon power in general. did they have any reason to

carry a message to then-president nixon that this pardon power could possibly be used on his behalf if he resigns? >> none whatsoever. categorically no. >> then why, mr. president, why was the general discussions about pardons? >> well, as i indicated in my prepared statement, general haig came to me first to apprise me of the dramatic change in the situation. and as i indicated in the prepared statement, told me that i should be prepared to assume the presidency very quickly and wanted to know whether i was ready to do that. secondly, he did indicate that in the white house, among the president's advisors, there were many options being discussed as to what course of action the president should take. and in the course of my

discussion on august 1 with -- with general haig, he outlined as i did in the prepared text the many options that were being discussed. he asked for any recommendations i would make, and as i indicated in the prepared text, i made none. >> thank you. mr. president, mr. buicken said several times, and i believe you have mentioned, that the pardon did involve a certain aspect of mercy. would not the same considerations of mercy apply to the watergate defendants downtown who now are putting forth as their chief defense their allegation that they were merely acting under orders of mr. nixon -- then president -- and their boss? >> mr. edwards, in light of the fact that these trials are being carried out at the present time, i think it's inadvisable for me to comment on any of the

proceedings in those trials. >> mr. president, put yourself in the position of the high school teacher shall we say in of san jose barrios or harlem, and if you were such a teacher, how would you explain to the young people of american, the american concept of equal justice under law? >> mr. edwards, mr. nixon was the 37th president of the united states. he had been preceded by 36 others. he is the only president in the history of this country who has resigned under shame and disgrace. i think that that in and of itself can be understood, can be explained to the students or to others.

that was a major, major step and a matter of i'm sure grave, grave deliberations by the former president, and it certainly as i have said several times constituted shame and disgrace. >> thank you, mr. president. mr. president, do you think that it is wise to pardon a man or -- before indictment or trial for offenses that are completely unknown to you and which might possibly be terribly serious? >> well, as i indicated, mr. edwards, i did to the best of my ability check with probably the best authority in the country on what, if any, charges would be made against mr. nixon. those were or potentially were serious charges. i think that in taking the

action i did concerning those charges, i was exercising in a proper way the pardon authority given a president under the constitution. >> thank you, mr. president. >> gentleman from indiana, mr. dennis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. president, i would like to state that i, too, share with my colleagues a deep appreciation for your appearance here before our subcommittee this morning. mr. president, on page seven of your statement where you were talking about your first -- or your second interview with general haig in the afternoon of august 1, you state that i described this meeting because at one point it did include references to a possible pardon for mr. nixon. i take it that you have spelled out what those references were

over on pages nine, where the options are spelled out on page 10 where you state that you inquired as to what was the president's pardon power. >> yes. it is spelled out in the item instances one through six. the various options involving a pardon. >> and does that include everything that was said at that time on the subject of pardons substantially? >> yes, sir. >> mr. president, i note that on page 10 you state that you asked the general as to what the president's pardon power was, and he very properly replied that he had certain information but couldn't give legal opinion. when, where, and from whom did

you ultimately obtain the opinion that you were entitled under the doctrine of exparty garland and so on to issue a pardon when there had been no charge or no conviction? >> when i came back to the oval office, mr. dennis, following a press conference on august 28 where three questions were raised by the news media pardon, i instructed my counsel, mr. buken, to check in an authoritative way what pardon power a president had. and he several days later -- i don't recall precisely -- came back and briefed me on my pardon power as president of the united states. >> mr. president, the exercise of executive clemency is of

course a well-recognized part of the legal system in this country. exercised by you and all your predecessors. is that not correct? >> that is correct, sir. >> and that you have given this committee as i understand your testimony this morning your complete statement as to your reasons for exercising that power in this particular case. >> i have, sir. >> and in answer to my friend, mr. edwards, you have stated the fact that you felt that for an ex-president of the united states to resign under these circumstances was sufficient strong punishment and that that should answer the problems of those who have raised the question of equal justice under the law? >> that is correct, sir. >> and that you would consider other possible pardons on the facts of those particular cases when and if they were presented

to you. >> that is correct. >> and that there was no condition attached to this pardon, and no sort of agreement made in respect thereto before it was granted? >> none whatsoever. sir. >> thank you, mr. president. i have no further questions. >> gentleman from south dakota, mr. mann. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. president, we asked you about the termination of the investigation by the special prosecutor's office. was it your intention by the pardon to terminate the investigation by the special prosecutor's office in the 10 areas that you received the report from that office on? >> i think the net result of the pardon was in effect just that, yes, sir. >> and is that part of the reason that you didn't consult with mr. jaworski with reference to the agreements as to how that

might affect his further investigations? >> well, as i pointed out, the taped agreement was initiated between my legal counsel and mr. nixon some time before the question of a pardon ever arose. the reason for that, mr. mann, is that i came in to office and almost immediately there were demands and requests, not only from the special prosecutor's as i recall but from other sources as to those tapes and other documents. and one of first things i did when these problems came to my desk was to ask the attorney general for his opinion as to the ownership of those tapes. or any other documents.

and once we got that information, then we felt that there ought to be some discussion as to where the tapes and other documents would be held and under what circumstances. course, the mandate of the special prosecutor's office was not directed solely at president nixon. but is it not so that the pardon in effect terminated that investigation in so far as other parties, other possible defendants and in getting to the true facts of the matters that have disturbed our national political life during these past two years? >> i do not believe that the action i took in pardoning president nixon had any impact on any other mandate that that special prosecutor's office had.

>> what response would you have if the special prosecutor's office now requested access to certain of the tapes now in the custody of the government? >> the material that is still held by the government in my understanding of the supreme court decision permits the special prosecutor to obtain any of that material for its responsibility. and i of course -- not in a personal way -- would make sure that that information was made available to the special prosecuter's office. >> according to the press reports, president nixon was visited on september 22 and thereafter met with you in washington. are you at liberty to discuss -- to tell us the gist of the communication involving

president nixon from mr. stone to you? >> mr. stone came to see me about a program that he's used very successfully in his business. a program which he's very proud of and he was urging me to variouse it in the bureaus of the federal government. there was no other message conveyed by him from mr. nixon to me. >> did you ever discuss the pardon with former president nixon after his resignation and prior to the granting of the pardon? >> will you repeat that again, please? >> did you have any personal conversation with former president nixon about the pardon between his resignation and september the 8th? >> absolutely not. >> now, on -- in response to mr.

edwards' question about equal justice under the law, i know that you make a distinction that here we are talking about the office of president of the united states. but let's assume that we are talking about the president of a a bank or governor of a state or a chief justice of the united states supreme court. and whose minds those of very high political offices. do you think any of those persons who are allegedly criminally culpable through resignation should be entitled to any treatment different from any other citizens? >> mr. mann, i don't think i should answer a hypothetical question of that kind. i was dealing with reality. and i have given in my best

judgment the reasons for the action that i took. and to pass judgment on any other person or individual holding any other office in public or private, i think it would be inappropriate for me. >> the -- you have heard the maxim that the law is no respect to the persons. do you agree with that? >> certainly it should be. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from iowa, mr. main. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. president, i believe that the chairman and others in their

questioning have established very clearly that your appearance here today is an entirely voluntary one on your part, that it was your idea, that you have not been requested by the committee to come in person. that we had indicated that it would be entirely satisfactory as far as we were concerned if some assistant appeared instead. >> that is correct, sir. >> i do not think, however, that it has yet been made clear in the record and i think this should be, that it is also true that you were willing to come and to tell this full story as you have done before the committee and on television before the american people much earlier than today. is that not true? >> yes, i think the original schedule was set for about a week ago. i have forgotten the exact date.

>> but my recollection and you can correct me if i am wrong is that as early as september 30 you offered and volunteered to appear before the subcommittee at our next regular meeting which would have been -- on october the 1st. but it was indicated to you that that would be too early for the committee to be able to accommodate such an appearance. >> i don't recall that detail, but when i indicated that i would voluntarily appear, a member of my staff met with i think chairman hungate and between them, they tried to work out what was an acceptable, agreeable final as to when i should appear. >> there was of course the

concern which developed in the subcommittee as to whether there would be any possible jeopardy to the impaneling of the jury in watergate cases. but i think this timetable should be established and i would ask the chairman if that is not his recollection that originally the president did say that he would be glad to appear on october 1? >> not being under oath, the chair is glad to reply that the gentleman -- his recollection is the same as mine. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just think the point should be made that there has been no stalling at all or delay on the part of the president in making this appearance, but that he was not only willing to make the statement, but to do it much earlier. >> if the gentleman would yield briefly. >> i'm happy to yield.

>> that is precisely the fact, and it was consideration on the fact of many of us concerning the proper effect on any trials that held us to this day. >> now, mr. president, i think there was perhaps one part of mr. kastenmeier's questioning of that was left unanswered, and i'm going to try to go into that again. did you by granting this pardon have any intention of stopping the investigations of any other defendants or potential defendants? >> none whatsoever. >> mr. president, ever since i first heard of the watergate break in i have felt that this was a matter which should be fully investigated and prosecuted and that anybody found criminally involved should

be punished as provided by the law. i have repeatedly stated i thought our american system of justice as administered in the courts was fully capable of handling the situation if permitted to proceed without interference. i have been apprehensive that the activity of some of the legislative committees and the large amount of publicity attending upon those activities might make it impossible for our court system to function as it should. and i have also been fearful that the executive branch would intervene to limit or handicap the normal functioning of the courts. mr. president, i must say to you that i'm deeply concerned that both the legislative and executive branches have indeed interfered with our courts making it extremely difficult

for the traditional american system of justice to proceed in the regular manner in this case. and i was very disturbed by the granting of this pardon, particularly at such an early stage. even though certainly there is no question that under the law, you had the right to act as you did. now, i realize that hindsight is always better than foresight, but i'm wondering if after all that has happened and with further opportunity for reflection if you do not now feel that you perhaps acted too hastily in this case? >> mr. main, i have thought about that a great deal because there has been criticism of the timing. but as i reviewed my thoughts prior to the granting of the pardon, i had to look at this factual situation. if i granted the pardon when i did, it went as -- it would as quickly achieve tult, the

results of what i wanted -- which is permit the government, both the congress and the president to proceed to the solution of the problems. now some people say in their criticism and i understand it and i'm not critical of the points they raised -- i should have waited until mr. nixon was indicted. inferring that i should have then pardoned him if i was going to do so. well, other people say that i should have waited until he was convicted, if he was convicted and at that time i should have pardoned him. others have indicated that i should have waited to a conviction and a jail sentence if that were the result. now, all of that process, whether it's the indictment, the possible conviction, a conviction, plus a jail sentence would have taken as i tried to explain at least a year and probably much longer. and during that whole period of

time, mr. main, all of the things that i wanted to avoid, namely, the opportunity for our government -- the president and the congress and others to get to the problems we have would have been i think deeply upset and road blocked. so i'm convinced after reflection as i was previously that the timing of the pardon was done at the right time. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. >> representative from new york, ms. holeson. >> thank you. mr. chairman. mr. ford, i wish to applaud your historical appearance here today. at the same time, however, i wish to express my dismay that the format of this hearing will not be able to provide to the american public the full truth

and all of the facts respecting your issuance of pard on the richard nixon. unfortunately, each member of this committee will have only five minutes in which to ask questions about this most serious matter. unfortunately, despite my urging the committee failed to give sufficient time for each committee member to ask the questions that were appropriate. the committee declined to prepare fully for your coming by calling other witnesses, such as alexander haig, mr. buken, mr. becker and has failed to insist also on full production of documents by you respecting the issuance of this pardon. i must confess any own lack of uneasiness at participating in a proceeding that has raised such high expectations and unfortunately will not be able to respond to them. i would like to point out, mr. president, at the resolutions of inquiry that prompted your

appearance here today have resulted from dark suspicions that have been created in the public's mind. perhaps these suspicions are totally unfounded and i sincerely hope that they are. but nonetheless we must all confront the reality of these suspicions. and the suspicions that were created by the circumstances of the pardon which you issued, the secrecy with which i was issued and the reasons for which it was issued, which made people question whether or not in fact it was a deal. >> may i comment there? i want to assure you, the members of this subcommittee, the members of the congress and the american people there was no deal period, under no circumstances. >> well, mr. president, i appreciate that statement and i'm sure many of the american people do as well. but they are also asking questions about the pardon and i would like to specify a few of them for you so that perhaps we can have some of these answered. i think from the mail i have received from all over the country as well as my own

district, i know that the people want to understand how you can explain having pardoned richard nixon without specifying any of the crimes for which he was pardoned. and how can you explain pardoning richard nixon without obtaining any acknowledgment of guilt from him? how do you explain the failure to consult the attorney general of the united states with respect to the issuance of the pardon even though in your confirmation hearings you had indicated that the attorney general's opinion would be critical in any dekigs to pardon the former president? how can this extraordinary haste and the secrecy with the pardon was carried out be explained? how can you explain that it was accompanied by an agreement with respect to the tapes which in essence and in the public's mind hamper's the special prosecuter's access and was done in the public's mind with disregard to the public's right to know about nixon's misconduct in office?

and in addition, the public i think wants an explanation of how benton becker was used to ropt the interest of the united states in negotiating a taped agreement when at this very time he was under investigation by the united states for possible criminal charges. and how also can you explain not having consulted leon jaworski the special prosecutor before approving of the tape's agreement? i think mr. president, that these are only a few of the questions that have existed in the public's mind before and unfortunately still remain not resolved. and since i have a very brief time, i would like to ask you in addition to these questions, one further one, and this is the suspicions have been raised that

the reason for the pardon and the simultaneous tapes agreement was to ensure that the tape recordings between yourself and richard nixon never came out in public. to alleviate this suspicion once and for all, would you be willing to turn over to this subcommittee all tape recordings of conversations between yourself and richard nixon? >> those tapes under -- and in the opinion of the attorney general which i sought according to the attorney general and i might add according to past precedent belong to president nixon. those tapes are in our control. they are under an agreement which protects them totally, fully for the special prosecutor's office or for any other criminal proceedings. those tapes will not be delivered to anybody until a

satisfactory agreement is reached with the special prosecutor's office. we have held them because his office did request that. and as long as we have them, held in our possession for the special prosecutor's benefit, i see no way whatsoever that they can be destroyed, that they can be kept from proper utilization in criminal proceedings. now, those tapes belong to mr. nixon according to the attorney general, but they're being held for the benefit of the special prosecutor, and i think that's the proper place for them to be kept. >> gentleman from maryland, mr. hogan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm frankly amazed that my good friend, the gentlelady from new

york and her accusatory opening speech because certainly the gentle lady knows that it's the usual and ordinary and routine procedure of this subcommittee and this committee to operate under the five-minute rule. there is nothing extraordinary about us today allocating five minutes of time for questioning to each member of the committee. we always operate this way. her other observation about not doing any preparatory work by calling other witnesses was rejected as far as i recall by all other members of the subcommittee on the basis that this resolution of inquiry is directed to the president of the united states and properly so. so it would be totally inappropriate for the resolution of inquiry to address itself to individuals other than the subject of that resolution.

that resolution of inquiry. now, mr. president, i would like to join too too in commending you for your statement and your openness and candor in coming in this very historic event. i'm frankly concerned that some of the questioning by my colleagues asking questions if all men aren't equal under the law, because certainly being the outstanding lawyers that they are, they know that the pardoning power itself is inherently inequitable. but for a larger purpose it grants to the chief executive of the federal government or the state in the case of state crimes to pardon individuals who may or have been indicted or convicted of crimes. so we should not expect this to apply as if there were a trial of these criminal offenses, and furthermore we also know that in our system of criminal justice, even the prosecutors themselves

exercise prosecutive discretion. there is no question whatsoever, that the constitution gives to the president of the united states broad and absolute power to pardon individuals of criminal offenses. we also know from the debates of the framers of the constitution that they specifically rejected including in the constitution the words "after conviction." they also in the debate at that time indicated situations where it might be necessary or desirable to grant a pardon even before indictment, as was the case in this instance. now, mr. president, i know that you followed very carefully the deliberations of this committee during the impeachment inquiry and i know you're also aware that this committee unanimously concluded that the president was

guilty of an impeachable offense growing out of obstruction of justice. so in a sense, couldn't we not say that this was at least the basis for a possible criminal charge which was already spread on the record with ample evidence to justify it? so those who say you should have waited until there were formalized charges are overlooking the fact that there was a very formalized charge and indictment if you will by this committee. >> well, the unanimous vote of the house committee on the judiciary, all 35 members certainly is very, very substantial evidence that the former president was guilty of an impeachable offense. there's no doubt in my mind that that recommendation of this full committee would have carried in the house which would have been even more formal as an

indication of criminal activity or certainly to be more specific an impeachable offense. and of course, the prospects in the senate with such a formidable vote in the committee and in the house would have been even more persuasive. >> mr. president, referring to the memorandum from mr. root to mr. jaworski, enumerating the 10 possible criminal offenses, it's true that this committee addressed itself if i'm not mistaken to every single one of these charges and assessed evidence as to each one of them? and we found them wanting, that they were not sufficient justification for an impeachable offense. and the last paragraph of that memorandum says -- and i quote, none of these matters at the moment rises to the level of our ability to prove even a probable

criminal violation by there nixon. now, this memorandum does not include the obstruction of justice which i addressed myself to earlier. so i think we can logically assume that there would not have been any indictment resulting from mr. jaworski's activities other than in the area of obstruction of justice. and with further corroboration of that point, i allude to a story in "the wall street journal" yesterday where mr. jaworski who incidentally not oonly -- not only agrees with your pardon, but the legality and the timeliness of it, and he says very specifically that there was going to be no additional disclosures resulting from his activities that the public was not already aware of relating to mr. nixon.

so those who were saying we should wait till there's a formal charge i think are missing the point that there has been a former charge approved by this committee. now, mr. president, don't you feel that the very acceptance of the pardon by the former president is tantamount to an admission of guilt on his part? >> i do, sir. >> so those who say again that they would have preferred that the president admit his culpability before a pardon being issued again are overlooking that fact? >> the acceptance of a pardon according to the legal authorities, and we have checked them out very carefully, does indicate that by the acceptance, the person who has accepted it does in effect admit guilt. >> thank you, mr. president. again, i would like to express my personal appreciation for your candor and your openness and your cooperation with the coequal branch. >> thank you very much. >> mr. president, as you can

see, the peculiar strength of this subcommittee lies in the fact that the subcommittee members bring so much knowledge to it and the subcommittee chairman takes a little away. i noticed in your page 10 of your statement that when you were first hit with the possibility of this responsibility, you indicated you wanted to talk to your wife before making a decision. mr. andpr and-- and -- mr. president, did you do that? >> i certainly did, mr. chairman. because the probability or possibility of my becoming president obviously would have had a significant impact on her life as well as our life. >> that destroys my theory that if you talked to her, you would have waited until indictment or christmas eve. let me ask if any attempt was made by or your representative to contact the federal pardon authority a to his opinion, as

to the customary procedures in issuing a pardon? >> i did not, sir. >> now, mr. president, guyi go to page 20 of the statement. and i'm addressing myself to the health question. in the first responses provided the press releases on one of these -- page three it refers to september 16th now as the date of this press conference, after the pardon decision in which you're quoted. i have asked the doctor who is the head physician in the white house to keep me posted as to the former president's what health. i have been informed under -- on a routine day to day basis, but i'm not a at liberty to give information. and my question is, mr. president, had he reported prior to the pardon date or only after? >> the doctor gave me no information concerning president nixon's health prior to the time i issued the pardon. he did at my request when i heard rumors of -- about former president's health

keep me posted in proper channels, but that all occurred after the pardon took place. >> the gentleman from indiana is seeking recognition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would just like to request that we make a part of the record the text of the opinion of the united states supreme court and exparty garland, 333 and also the opinion of the united states supreme court in verdict against the united states 236, u.s. 79 which deals with the point that a pardon must be accepted. >> without objection, it will be made part of the record. >> mr. chairman, i would like to make a part of the record if i may the article referred to by my colleague, mr. hogan, which appeared in "the wall street

journal" of october 16, 1974, and headed the pardon of nixon was timely. >> it is so ordered without objection. >> mr. chairman, may i add to something i said just to make it correct? >> yes, sir. >> somebody asked about when i last saw if -- last saw the president. i said that i had seen him on the 9th. i did as he departed, but i had also seen the president the morning of the 8th at the time i was asked to come and see him , and at that time, we spent an hour and 20 minutes together or thereabouts. when he told me that he was going to resign. so i saw him both the 8th and the 9th, just to make the record accurate. as you are aware of your time constraints.

-- all of us are aware. and i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to, for the record, indicate that the statement of the gentleman from maryland, mr. hogan, to the effect that the proposal that this subcommittee will try to contact certain staff members such as general haig and others was supported by me. i thought it would have been excellent. in the past we have done very well in terms of staff work preliminary to hearings that might have helped put some of the questions to rest. mr. president, you indicated that as far as mr. haig was concerned, that he had suggested certain options to you. but did not in fact make a recommendation to you with respect to the pardon, is that correct? >> that is correct. i answered that i think as fully as i can in my prepared statement. he discussed the options. he made no recommendations. >> which other persons to you personally made recommendations

that the former president be pardoned from that time in early august to the day of september 6 when you made your decision? >> no other person to my knowledge made any recommendation to me from that time until the time that i made a decision about september 6. nobody made any recommendation to me for the pardon of the former president. >> with respect to discussions between general haig and mr. nixon, or other matters in question two, you indicated you had no personal knowledge both in writing and i think in your statements today, i take it you would have no objection if the subcommittee sought to question

mr. haig or others on the subject before us this morning to supplement this hearing and this inquiry? >> i don't think that's within my prerogative. i have come here to testify as the specific facts as i know them. but what the subcommittee does a judgment for the subcommittee and not me. >> the chair is advised that the house is in recess, waiting for the conclusion of this hearing before reconvening. so if i might, i will yield to mr. hogan for questions at this point and then ms. holeson for questions and then we'll conclude. >> mr. hogan? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. president, on page 20 of your statement, you talk about the health issue, and that you had not gotten any official reports from physicians about -- controlling in your decision. you state that observations were reported to you from others. now, there have been press

reports that dr. kissinger is alleged to have said to you that he feared that former president nixon would commit suicide. that appeared in several news accounts. is there any truth to that? >> there's no truth to it whatsoever. as far as i know. >> well, it appeared in "the new york times", the "washington post", on two occasions. and is alluded to in a research paper prepared for the subcommittee. >> there was no discussion between dr. kissinger and myself that included any such comment. >> i think if i might add a gratuitous comment, mr. chairman, that much of the controversy has been generated by the press, by just such erroneous statements that have been given wide circulation. thank you, mr. president. >> yes.

i'll ask for one concise question because i want to respect the time. >> thank you. what were the precise instructions given to benton becker by you when he went to to see mr. nixon's acceptance of the pardon? >> the precise instructions given to the mr. becker were actually given by my counsel, mr. buken. in general, i knew what they were. they were instructions to negotiate the protection of those documents including the tapes for the benefit of the special prosecutor in whatever use he felt was essential. and at the same time, to keep

hem inviolate in a period of time which we felt was a proper one. >> but not to offer the pardon unless that agreement had been negotiated. negotiations as to the ustody or ownership of the documents, including -- they to august aken prior 27th. were more or less besieged, when i say we, the what to do as to tapes.ose documents and that negotiation had no relevance whatsoever to the part to pardon the president. >> the chair would remind all of constraints of time and call for one final question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. r. ford, you stated that the

theory on which you pardoned mr. nixon is that he suffered enough. mention you in that theory because the illogical consequence of that is that resigns in the face of virtually certain impeachment who is impeach ed should not be punished because punishment is enough. i wonder if anyone brought it to the attention that constitution states that even though someone is impeached that be on shall nonetheless liable to punishment according to law? fully cognizant of the act that the president on resignation was accountable for any criminal charges. like to say that the the pardon was not as to mr. nixon himself. i repeat with

emphasis, the purpose of the was to try and get the united states, the congress, the president, the american people focusing on the serious problems both at home and abroad. i am convinced that the a i ension would be diverted from the problems that we have to solve. and that's the principal reason granting of the pardon. >> i would like to commend the coming.nt for

i think you've opened a new era between the legislative and departments. i'm happy for you. >> i want to express to you and committee rs of the or subcommittee my appreciation and the fine man and i think the this meeting ich was held this morning. i felt it was absolutely i could make a background in the decision aking process and i hope that in my opening statement, mr. chairman, we have at least most persons r so would understand what was done and why it was done. and again, i trusted all of us get back to the job of trying to solve the problems both at home and abroad. >> on what have of the subcommittee, we express our appreciation to your appearance and recognition the

responsibility we all have to complete this work and get on the business. the transcripts will be furnished as quickly as possible members of the subcommittee. the subcommittee will adjourn subject to the call of the chair.

>> up next on the presidency, we'll hear from former president senator edward kennedy in a 2001 ceremony at the john f. kennedy presidential library. erald ford received a profiles award. after his august 9, 1974 resignation. honored to be here today with oh president ford, the of this year's profile in courage award and congressman of thewis, the recipient rofile and courage lifetime achievement award. oday we honor two outstanding leaders who withextraordinary and eat of controversy persevered in their beliefs about what was in our country's best interest.